Bible translations and their development

Transcript

good evening everyone x uh so tonight i thought we would take a x look rather than x looking at x the bible uh rather we're gonna look at x our bibles and uh talk a little bit x about translations and different bible x translations that we all might have x and there are three main questions that x really we're going to try and answer x tonight x one is going to be what is being x translated what has been translated x second question is going to be about how x that is being translated and finally x why it's being translated and the x importance x of x the bible being translated as many times x it has been x so to start x i thought we would begin x excuse me by taking a look at uh the x time before the bible was even in x english x now by the time that the bible was first x translated into english x it was before uh before that it was x translated into latin and it was x something called the latin vulgates x and this was a translation that was used x by the roman catholic church and they x held x a certain level of authority over the x known world x and even x over the word of god at the time x um x in particular x they prohibited x the translation of the bible x into common english and instead they x insisted that x the common people would simply hear x the word of god read and expounded from x from latin from again this latin vulgate x translation x and it was this x prohibition this uh this ban on x translating the bible that actually x naturally you know as x as x humans are naturally rebellious led them x to x the controversial and dangerous task of x translating the bible into english x and x thankfully they did x and the first one to undertake the duty x of translating the bible into english x was a man by the name of john wycliffe x and x it was in the late 1300s and this is x just a brief little history class that x i'm sure x rich would do a much better job with but x in the late 1300s uh wycliffe created x the first english translation of the x bible x however it was translated not from the x original greek and hebrew that we x might think about but rather this was x translated out of the latin x and again this was wycliffe's bible x and x his work inspired x future bible translations into the x common english x william tyndale is x uh the next person of note here who x was no doubt inspired by x uh the x first english bible by john uh john x wycliffe x but he continued this very dangerous x task of translating the bible into x english x uh and this time he actually did x translate it from the greek and the x hebrew texts x and as a result he was labeled a heretic x and actually executed and murdered for x his work in x the early 1500s x and then x shortly after that and and x with tyndale's bible that you know x inspired a multitude of other english x bibles and finally we get to x uh the king james version and x its revision the new king james x uh version and these are x i skipped ahead uh x so this does bring us to the king james x version not the new king james and ahead x of myself uh but x um it brings us to what's likely the x most x widely used translation within our x community here at the very least in the x top three x uh and it is the king james version x and it was inspired by x uh this man william tyndale's work to x first translate the bible from the x original greek and hebrew into english x and x it shares a lot of similarities the king x james shares a lot of similarities with x this x with the tyndale bible and most notably x are the greek x manuscripts that are used to translate x the new testament x when x like translation scholars will will sort x of x talk about you know the different x different x texts and manuscripts used usually the x old testament is pretty cut and dry x but it's the new testament manuscripts x that have a bit more x uh x a bit more of an argument one way or x another and x the king james version and its revision x the new king james version are the only x two bible versions today i think i'm as x far as i know uh that use x and base its translation of the new x testament on a set of greek manuscript x greek manuscripts that are known as x the textus receptus x now that's latin for the received text x and this is the same x greek manuscripts that x william tyndale was was uh x basing his x translation on his original english x translation x now the textus receptus x is x uh again the greek x manuscripts at the time uh and it x contained only six just six greek x manuscripts that dated back only to the x 10th century x uh so quite a bit of diff of distance x between x the x textus receptus these greek manuscripts x and the original x uh original texts when they were first x first written these were copies of x copies of copies x however however many x many times x and of these six texts in this x collection x only one of them contained the gospels x and another one uh was the only one that x contained most of the book of revelation x the final six verses were missing x completely and x were translated x what is called back translated from the x latin into greek x and so there is a lot of sort of x variances and discrepancies x uh there then x manuscripts that are found x later in uh x in history and so while the textus x receptus appears to have quite a few x drawbacks x uh we have to remember that these x manuscripts were x well they were the best available at the x time and as more and more of these x manuscripts began to be discovered x uh x it turned out that the majority of these x manuscripts that were discovered they x did agree with the textus receptus in x most places x albeit the mo x the most sort of the majority of all of x these manuscripts x also dated around the same time period x as the textus receptus so still quite a x long time x between x when these manuscripts were written and x when the originals x were written you know a good x several hundred years x and so the question remains x if the majority of greek manuscripts x agree x with the textus receptus x why then do only two bible translations x base the new testament off of it right x so it's only the king james and only the x new king james x based their new testaments x off of x this x set of greek manuscripts which again x uh agree with the majority of x manuscripts discovered today x and this question is actually the source x of quite a bit of controversy among x you know bible scholars and translation x scholars and x uh unfortunately it's i think it's quite x needless um x you know i recently saw a post x shared on facebook and this x i think was sort of the the x thing that kind of x implanted this idea for a class in my x head and it was it was a post on x facebook x essentially criticizing modern x translations x of the bible particularly the niv and x the esv x for quote unquote removing verses from x the bible x and x on one hand this post was not totally x incorrect x because there in fact are verses in the x king james version that appear x to be missing from any modern version x with the exception of the new king james x but the truth of the matter is that x these verses x well they weren't so much x removed x as they were x added x and this leads us to the answer of our x question a question being why would only x two x bible translations base their new x testaments off of x the majority of these greek x manuscripts that have been found x because there exists another set of x greek manuscripts of greek texts x of the new testament x that date much earlier x than the textus receptus the received x text and the majority of manuscripts so x they're much closer to the time that the x original x would have actually been written x in this set of greek texts is referred x to as the critical text so we have on x one hand we have the textus receptus or x the received text x in this again as the king james and the x new king james x and then we have the critical text on x the other hand and this is x everything else x um x and so x still we we asked why would translations x use different greek texts if the textus x receptus agrees with the majority of x manuscripts x and so the argument then for for the x textus receptus the argument for x the greek manuscripts for the king james x and for the new king james is x to put it simply that that more is x better you know majority rules kind of x thing the majority of texts agree with x us x and that's a fair argument x um x and i think my point with this is is not x to x make you lean one way or another but x it's just to present you both both x arguments here one is that more is x better x than the argument for the critical text x which is you know the esv the niv the x nasb x the x whatever else translation you can think x of x the argument here then is the older the x better x right so the critical text x includes greek manuscripts dating as x early as the 2nd century x as opposed to the 10th like with the x textus receptus x admittedly there are x fewer surviving manuscripts of this age x but many bible translation scholars and x experts although not all but many of x them prefer the critical text this older x being better um x sort of argument x and the ultimate reason for this x is that there are no originals x in existence x but rather there are copies of the text x there are copies of copies of comments x and x obviously this was all well before the x invention of the printing press there x was no you know there was no command to x see command v copy and paste x uh and rather these manuscripts would x have been copied out by hand x and x well these copyists x made mistakes x and so the argument goes that majority x of these texts which again date much x later than the early manuscripts of the x critical texts x that these x texts the majority of them actually x reflect the x accumulation of these copying errors x over the years x now it's similar to a game x that we might remember from like x elementary school x and that's the game telephone it's when x you have a group of children sitting in x a big circle x and one of them whispers a phrase into x the ear of the person next to them x then that person whispers it to the next x person and so on and so forth all around x this big circle x and then what began as x my dog likes to fetch x eventually turns into x my birdhouses from the beach x and it just there's a lot of change and x in this x to a much lesser degree x uh you know than that example uh is what x we see x with these copies of x uh the greek new testament x and thankfully x you know thanks be to god for this that x that most of these variations x and these uh x copying errors x are insignificant x and they don't affect any major x doctrines x most of them x perhaps the biggest x i think glaring example of this x sort of this copy x error that x was added x later to the original text perhaps this x biggest example could be found in 1st x john chapter 5. x so let's all actually take a look there x now at first john chapter 5 x and x it's verse x verses 5 through nine x i'm going to read them from the king x james x the king james reads x who is he that overcometh the world but x he that believeth that jesus is the son x of god x this is he that came by water and blood x even jesus christ x not by water only but by water and blood x and it is the spirit that beareth x witness because the spirit is truth x and now this verse in the king james x for there are three that bear record in x heaven the father x the word and the holy ghost and these x three are one x it continues and there are three that x bear witness in earth the spirit and the x water and the blood and these three x agree in one if we receive the witness x of men the witness of god is greater for x this is the witness of god which he had x testified in his son x so there's a pretty x i think concerning verse in the middle x there for x us is christadelphians there are three x that their record in heaven the father x the word and the holy ghost and these x three are one x it kind of x you know is is a a bit of a head x scratcher um x and x it's brother ron abel in rested x scriptures in his book he writes of he x writes about this verse x and here's what he says he refers to it x as uh x being extremely unlikely that it was x included in the original text he says x but it turned out that the discovered x manuscript x which is called the uh the manfort x manuscripts now in trinity college x library dublin x this was the document submitted to x erasmus the the publisher of the textus x receptus x the manuscript that was submitted to him x is but a 15th century production of no x critical value and the disputed words x are taken from some corrupt latin x manuscripts now that is what uh brother x ron abel has to say regarding that verse x and that's not just a christadelphian uh x take but that's that's something that's x regarded x pretty universally among a lot of x uh a lot of translation experts x um x is that the this particular verse was x something that was added later x and if we were to take a look at the x same set of verses from a more modern x version such as the esb x we would see x that x it skipped right over and it's just x missing x so the problem verse that we saw in the x king james is completely removed x and thankfully this verse stands alone x as being one that's x really kind of contrary to sound x doctrine that that kind of x opposes what we know the bible to teach x uh and x thankfully that again it stands alone x because a lot of these other additions x are x insignificant less significance and x another example of one of these less x significance x changes the more common kind of changes x that we're going to see x is found in 1 thessalonians chapter 1. x first thessalonians chapter one x reads from the king james paul and x silvanus and timothy atmotheus x unto the church of the thessalonians x which is in god the father and in the x lord jesus christ x grace be unto you and peace from god our x father and the lord jesus christ x however when we read the x same verse from the esv x we simply read grace to you and peace x and it x skips it removes x from god our father and the lord jesus x christ x now this sort of error or x addition as we can think of it x seen in the king james is referred to as x a harmonization x it's kind of a nice music teacher word x so i like it harmonization x and it's where x it's where the copyists likely added a x phrase that's found elsewhere to x harmonize uh the one passage with the x other and in this case it's the x beginning of most paul's letters x where he says grace to you and peace x from god our father in the lord jesus x christ this is how second thessalonians x starts in the king james and in the esv x this is how many of paul's letters x starts x it's most commonly seen x ever in the gospels as the copyists x somewhat often likely added certain x phrases to x let's say the gospel of matthew x since it was in a parallel account of x the same x same x uh x you know the same passage essentially in x luke and so they added a phrase from the x one x to the other passage x and once again x you know i i can't stress this enough x thanks be to god that that all of these x changes and these variations x with the one glaring exception we talked x about x they're only minor and insignificant uh x and they don't stand x you know opposed they don't butt heads x with with any major doctrinal points x um x and so we we can rest assured with that x and again this is just to provide an x overview of sort of the two camps that x we have x with bible translations again we have x the textus receptus x which has the majority of texts that are x later x and the critical text x which are fewer manuscripts but date x earlier and closer to the time of the x original writings x and so that's sort of i know that's a x lot of information um x and that's really getting down to the x what of what is being translated x uh so we'll pause here if anyone has any x questions because i know i i threw a lot x at you uh x so i want to know if rich dineen agrees x with peter actually x so x so pete thanks for the for this um so x did you say in the beginning texas x receptus and the critical text are x limited to the greek they're limited to x the new testament that's what this is x all about so this is strictly about the x uh new testament the old testament is is x much more cut and dry regardless of x which translation is going to be much x more similar regarding the uh x the what's called the textual basis x okay x all right and x it seems like there's a lot of um x uh a lot of stress in our community on x using the king james as a matter of fact x it's in our constitution that we're x supposed to read in boston from from the x king james from the platform x um x and i i wonder i mean you you've x highlighted uh x one x difference x uh between the two sets um x are there others that x um x are there others that x what are the other ones that are that x are driving chris adelphians to use x uh the texas receptus x and away from the critical text if they x if i mean your appreciation is that x these are all kind of x ho-hum x why well what do you why are you arguing x so x do you know what x yeah just a historical x community argument about about right x version x now there are some um x you know that that are larger again not x not tackling any major x uh like x not introducing any anything contrary to x major doctrine x but an example that comes to my mind is x the lord's prayer x where the ending of the lord's prayer x for thine is the kingdom in the heaven x and the kingdom and the power and glory x forever amen x uh is missing x from uh the x uh x the critical text yeah so so that is x called the the doxology the ending of x the lord's prayer x that would be an example of one that x uh x you know some people might certainly x prefer x we text this receptus over and x uh and we're gonna talk more about x the use of different translations in our x community and looking more at x so we've talked about what was being x translated in the the x basis of a lot of these translations and x then we're gonna dive into in a moment x uh the x how things are being translated and so i x think we'll we'll clear up some things x that you uh x are uh x wondering about x um so let's let's actually move on just x for the sake of time x so so now that we've tackled the x question of x what is being translated x we can start to shift our focus x now to how it's being translated x see every bible translation x seeks a balance between two goals x right there's accuracy and there's x readability x and this balance is what's referred to x as a translation philosophy x and it looks different for each x translation x so what we're going to see then is that x each bible translation philosophy x it falls somewhere on a spectrum x now i'm going to share my screen here x uh and i have a x image here x here we go x see that already has word for word x thought for thought x yep and all that x great x so now that we've uh we can we can start x to take a look at this x translation spectrum so on one side x uh we have x word for word and you'll see there it x says formal equivalence x um and formal equivalence also known as x word for word or a quote-unquote literal x translation x it seeks to x keep the form and the sentence structure x the same as the original greek and x hebrew x so for individual words these x translations are going to try to use the x same english word for a hebrew or greek x word as often as they can x as well as maintaining the same dramatic x structure as the original texts x now there are advantages and x disadvantages to to any of these x uh any of these translation philosophies x so with this word for word formal x equivalence literal translation x the advantages and strengths x are uh found in its accuracy to the x biblical language found in the original x manuscripts x with a formal equivalent translation x you're going to have a clearer you're x going to have clearer bible callbacks x clear bible echoes and illusions x with certain keywords and key phrases x there's a lot of depth and a lot of x benefit in looking x more deeply into the original language x and x formal equivalent translations do a x great job at maintaining the structure x and the form of the original greek and x hebrew x but perhaps the biggest disadvantage x of this approach x to this approach is that the adherence x to the form x and the structure of the original x language x is achieved at the expense of x readability of readability excuse me x um x achieve at the expense of readability so x formal equivalent translations often x are more difficult to understand x especially if you aren't used to a x translation like that x and x you can think of people who read at a x lower level x people who perhaps have english as a x second language x uh x they're going to struggle more with a x formal equivalent translation they're x going to struggle x to x to understand x and really grasp the meaning x of x god's message x so that is formal equivalent x word for word translations x uh i'm not going to tackle each subset x of this x spectrum here x but x on the other side x we have x functional equivalent translations x or x thought for thought as they're sometimes x referred to x as opposed to word for word x sometimes you might hear the phrase x idiomatic translation as well now these x kinds of translations these are x translations such as the x niv x the new living translation the new x english translation x and these translations are going to x alter the form x and the sentence structure of the x original languages in order to present x the main idea of a verse x phrase x or sentence x more clearly in english x now this approach x offers a lot of strengths x first of all it's going to have a very x readable translation x translators of this kind of philosophy x this thought for thought x um x well they have a unified goal x which is to be faithful to the original x meaning of the text x while using language that is clear x and natural to modern readers x to put it another way x the goal is that today's readers of the x bible x will understand it x in english x in the same way that the original x readers understood it in greek or in x hebrew x so as well as simply being readable x a thought for thought translation is x going to provide you with a different x perspective x in regards to connections and x uh illusions and callbacks and echoes x see with the word for word translation x you might read something and think well x this word or this phrase reminds me of x another passage x which is great and that's a x wonderful connection we can make x whereas a thought for thought x translation it might make you think well x the main idea here x reminds me of the main idea of a x different passage x and so it's a similar x you know as we're as we're seeing the x connections and the intricacies of god's x word x it just provides you with an another x perspective that i think uh can be very x beneficial x but then for the disadvantages the clear x disadvantage here is that with the x thought for thought approach x there is x a greater room for error x on the translators part x now while the naturalness of the x language that that's x clarity and uh x the the fact that it kind of sounds the x way that we might say it that x naturalness of the language while it x does provide great readability x it sometimes is done at the expense of x accuracy sometimes x now this translation philosophy requires x that the translators x determine and interpret the meaning x first x so that there's greater margin for error x in addition this approach can also lose x some of the nuance of the meaning x in pursuit of simplicity and clarity of x language x so that is the x thought for thought the functional x equivalence x translation so as opposed to the king x james esv nasv that we have with the x word for word x translations here we have the niv x the new living translation x um x [Music] x that the net bible x however it's important to note here x that x we x see exceptionally it's important to note x here that x even translations like the king james x like the esv like the nasb x they also have to alter the original x text so that the translation is x comprehensible x so that x it makes sense x right and as well as to fit what the x translators decide is appropriate based x on the context x so even the x more literal x translations have some margin for error x in regards to translators interpretation x now if you have x a bible that falls under this category x if you take a look at the preface of x your bible you'll likely find the phrase x essentially literal x translation x now that word literal that we read there x is sometimes x equated with x better x um x and x even these literal translations have the x margin for error and so it's a shame i x think that x we make that connection between literal x and automatically better than say a x thought for thought translation x because x well do we really know what we mean when x we say the word x literal x let's take for instance the word key x in english the word key x k-e-y x if i asked x what the literal meaning of the word key x is x i'm sure that many of you x were thinking x what you used to unlock the door x but x perhaps some of you were thinking about x the key on your computer's keyboard x or x maybe you were thinking about the key of x c major x or the florida keys or an answer key or x the key point x see words can have many different x meanings x and often they don't just have one x literal meaning x and so to further complicate this x then when we add in and we factor in the x idea of translation x it gets even trickier x so let's pretend that we wanted to try x and translate the word key x from english into spanish x now the issue here is that there are x five different words in spanish x for the same english word x ki x so when translating the bible x the same goes for translating greek x and hebrew into english and there's a x whole lot of x of difficulty in this and x what we get at what we ultimately see is x that all translators x whether it's the translators for the x king james version or for the niv x they first had to look at the context of x the word the context of the phrase the x sentence the verse to determine for x themselves what the text is saying x and at its core what we x will understand is that x all translation x is interpretation x now that might be an idea that makes us x a little uncomfortable at first x after all you know each translation is x going to have its own biases and x sometimes those biases can lead to x interpretations that are wrong and x incorrect but x god reassures us x that his people can learn x the truth of the gospel x through the use x of x translations x that are not in the original greek and x hebrew x even with its errors x let's consider x the x septuagint x now this is the x greek translation of x the old testament x so it was taken out of the hebrew and x translated into greek and when we read x the new testament x and we read paul's letters x or we read the letter to the hebrews x or even when jesus himself is quoting x the old testament x they're often quoting from the x septuagint from this greek translation x of the old testament out of the original x language x and so clearly it's x what we see is that x reading god's word through x a translation x into our own language x clearly it's an acceptable way to read x god's word x but don't get me wrong i i x am x not saying that every translation is x ultimately correct i mean we we looked x at that x verse in in first john x that that sort of trinity heavy verse x that we we talked about as x being an addition uh to to the the x original text x and x what we see is that sometimes the x translators do get it wrong x and this is something that x i think our community has has recognized x at least on paper uh in our statement of x faith there is a section talking about x inspiration of the bible x and it reads like this x that the book x currently known as the bible x is the only source of knowledge x concerning god and his purposes of the x present extant x and the present time are available in x the earth x and that the same x the bible was wholly given by x inspiration of god x in the writers and are consequently x without error in all parts of them x then there's a little clause here that x says accept such as maybe due to errors x of transcription x or translation x there is no x perfect bible translation x every single translation is going to x have something whether it's a small x minor thing x or x something a little bit more major like x what we saw in the first john x there's gonna be x biases in the translators parts x there's going to be x some errors some alterations of x god's word x and i think that this is one reason why x i believe it's so important for us x to read from multiple translations x you read from a bible that falls on one x side of that spectrum we looked at x if x the king james is x your bible x that's great x but i think it's important that we read x from across the spectrum that we try and x read from x the niv or from the net bible x and on the flip side if we are x uh uh x the proud owner and reader of an niv x there's benefit in reading from x something like the esv or the king james x the new king james that has that more x word-for-word approach we're going to x we're going to get different things out x of it x if we x are reading from the king james or the x esv and that's what we've known x we're going to x we're going to kind of fall into a x routine when it comes to certain bible x passages that we know really well x and with any routine x sometimes x that meaning behind it x can lose a little bit of its power for x us x and x when there are passages in the bible x that we're so used to reading x when we read it in a new word x when we read it from a new translation x that can actually help to x kind of reignite that fire within us x that that x shines that verse that passage in a new x light x that really opens our eyes in a x spiritual way to to be encouraged and x uplifted x and on the flip side if x you read the niv or the nlt x you can benefit from reading one of x these word for word translations you're x going to get different callbacks you're x going to x get a x different x understanding of x the biblical language and x the the use x of certain words of certain phrases x and there's a great great benefit and x new perspectives that we can gain x from reading different translations x so we've tackled x the x what of translation we've tackled the x how and we've just a little bit tackled x the why x and i believe that x something to be said here x that paul mentions in first corinthians x so in first corinthians chapter 14 x we're going to read from verses 1 x through 4. x pursue love x and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts x especially that you may prophesy x for the one who speaks in a tongue x speaks not to men but to god x for no one understands him x but he utters mysteries in the spirit on x the other hand the one who prophesies x speaks to people for their upbuilding x and encouragement and consolation x the one who speaks in a tongue builds up x himself x but the one who prophesies builds up the x church x now this passage x when we look at the context is clearly x talking about x the spiritual gifts of x speaking in tongues and of prophesying x and x and x i think x and i actually i believe that we can x take the principle behind these passages x and apply it to our community today x that god's message is meant to be x understood x and whether you understand god's message x in the king james or if you understand x god's message with the niv or with the x nlt x god's message is meant to be x understood x by his people x the bible is more accessible today x than it has ever been x into english alone there's more than x a hundred different bible translations x we should see this as a blessing x god's word x is inspired x and it is preserved for his creation to x read x and to learn from x so whether you're reading x the niv or the x esv x the new living translation of the new or x the new king james x you can not only learn the truth of the x gospel x but you can grow x in christ x so let's view the different translations x that are available to us as a blessing x that we can do as paul exhorts in first x corinthians x so that we all might be able to x understand x so that the body of christ x is built up