COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLE “WHICH TRANSLATION IS THE BEST?”

This is a response to a friends request let him know what I thought about an article he read on line.

I would suggest that even though he tries to imply that he has no agenda in writing this article, quite the opposite is true. One simply has to read between the lines to know that he believes the KJV or NKJV are the best translations or versions. I knew that this would be his conclusion before I had finished the first paragraph. I would have preferred that he take a more direct approach, and a less a priori approach, but having said that I would not quarrel with his beliefs in this regard, just what I feel is a lack of candor and honesty.

Let me address the matter of Greek Text. That the Erasmus Text which is the basis for the Textus Receptus is a true statement as far as it goes. Erasmus was a Catholic Priest who taught himself Greek later in his life, because the Catholic Church did not approve of or see the need of the Greek text. For them Latin was the language of choice. That their Latin and Old Latin translations were made from earlier Greek manuscripts did not seem to matter. Erasmus became an excellent Greek scholar. His Greek Text was a triumph of one man’s desire to rediscover the original Greek Text of the New Testament. Erasmus used no manuscript older than the 10th century AD and most of the Texts he used were from the 12th and 13th centuries he also relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate. Bruce Metzger (the foremost Greek Scholar of the later 20th and early 21st century-“The Text of the New Testament p.100) “As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript-but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.” He only had Greek manuscripts for the first chapters of Revelation. His solution to this problem was to translate these chapters from Latin into Greek. To me one of the most interesting things about this was how accurate he was and how close to the Greek Text he was able to come. A man by the name of Stephanus took the Erasmus text and improved upon it to a minor degree but it changed very little from the original. A group named the Elsevir’s worked with the text and because of the discovery of the movable type printing press purchased the rights to print the Greek Text, adding the phrase Textus Recptus or “This is the Text received by all,” which was more for marketing purposes than being accurate. The truth is that this text is based more upon what is know is the Western Text than is those that follow and it was not a critically arrived at text (no systematic approach at how to deal with variant reading). It is the Text used for the most part by the translators of the KJV though they also used Latin and other English translations such as The Bishop’s Bible and Timbales' translation. One of the reasons was that the organized church did not want the Bible in the hands of the common man and many of the common people could not read.

The so called Western Text that he refers to and calls inaccurately Wescott-Hort are the three oldest (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) extant (complete) manuscripts and are not technically Western though they do have some Western influences. Westcott and Hort called the last two of these Neutral Text (they classify text by Western, Alexandrian and Neutral). Hort was also the first to suggest what he calls an internal examination of the text. The Manuscripts date from the first half of the 4th century AD (300’s) and some believe that they are manuscripts commissioned by the Emperor Constantine after he came to power in 325 AD (but there is no proof of this) and later make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Westcott and Hort led the way in modern Textual Criticism (The study of and attempt to recover the original Text of the New Testament). What they began in the 19th century was continued in the 20th century by a vast number of scholars some from our own fellowship. The discovery of Papyrus manuscripts and fragments has helped refine and develop the science of Textual Criticism. The Papyrus libraries contained the earliest examples of the text of the Bible. The oldest fragment comes from the Gospel of John and Dates around 100AD which is only a few years removed from the original writing itself. The Greek Text of today is not based on the priority of one family of text but upon a scientific, logical approach to what are known as variant readings. None of these variant readings change the meaning of the text. The majority are matters of whether the definite article (we translate as the) came before the noun or was not there. It is perfectly good Greek to either use articles or not use them. Another common variant is found when we have the common phrase, “Lord Jesus Christ.” The meaning is the same if you omit one title of even a combination of titles. Jesus is his name. He is Lord. He is the Christ or anointed one. It is easy to see how someone copying these manuscripts by hand could add one of these in order to clarify the text, at least in his view. The human hand cannot not remove from the transmission of these documents, because for over a thousand years they were copied and recopied by human hand. Yet there is not one fundamental doctrinal issue is affected by them or rest upon a questionable text. I would say that is amazing.

He says we must consider family of text but for the Biblical scholar this is only a minor consideration when determining a reading and often not considered at all because of the shear volume of textual material. The number of manuscripts now rest at somewhere around 100,000 manuscripts or fragments. He was using single source for his information which was in itself outdated (check his so called footnotes even uses this source to talk about Hort, one should always go to primary sources). I do not want someone quoting someone else quoting me this practice is rarely accurate. Westcott and Hort were not the proponents of the Gnostic theory that position came from F.C. Bauer and the Tubingen School in Germany (the beginning of Theological Liberalism). The German Liberals did not believe that any of the New Testament was written by the disciples in the 1st century. What they believed was that all of these documents were of 2nd century or later origin and a product of the church. If they could push the creation of these documents into the 2nd century that would deny and negate divine authorship, so they proposed a theory that most of these documents were written by the church to combat Gnosticism. What they knew and what scholars of today know is that Gnosticism was a 2nd century development in fact about the middle of the 2nd century. The more they repeated the lie that it was written to combat Gnosticism the more it became accepted. Today I am amazed at the number in the church and even conservative scholars who are still finding that non existent Gnostic in the New Testament, never questioning the origin of the theory. They just accept it because the read it in a commentary. If the New Testament was written in the 1st century as I believe it was then there are no Gnostics in the New Testament because they did not come into being until the middle of the 2nd century. Gnosticism has no barring on translation only on authorship and authority. Westcott and Hort were believers in the inspiration of scriptures. This is a no starter as an argument as is how they might have felt about Darwin (who by the way was not a scientist but trained as a theologian).

None of this answers the question of “which translation is the best?” It does in fact deflect attention from the primary question. My old Greek Professor use to say when asked which was the best translation of the Bible, “It hasn’t been made yet!” ( Robert Johnston) The article does touch upon part of the issue at stake here when he talks about literal translations. The ASV (1901) may be the most literal even to the point of keeping the Greek word order which makes it easiest to translate back into Greek, but it is somewhat mechanical in that English word order and sentence structure are different than Greek. The KJV is what is considered a literal translation but even it is not 100% literal. The issue is not whether it is a literal translation but of what is it a literal translation. This he does not address and simply ignores.
No translation from one language into another can be completely literal due to idiomatic considerations, word meaning and sentence structure. The NKJV is a revision of the KJV into more modern English. The RSV and NASV are also revisions of the ASV in an attempt to make more readable by American English speakers. These are all what are known as literal translations. The NIV was an attempt at a whole new translation using what is know as the dynamic equivalent as opposed to literal. What this means is that sometimes a word is better translated by a phrase to reveal the meaning of the word. It uses this technique frequently in an attempt to get at the original meaning of the text. Does it always succeed? These modern translations are base not upon Westcott and Hort but the Text used is the UBS 5th addition (United Bible Society) which is identical to the last Nestle-Aland text. The answer to this question is no but then neither does a literal translation. These are all imperfect human attempts to convey the meaning and core teaching found in the Bible. Just as a side note here, one of my Bible Professors was on the translation committee of the NIV (Dr. J.D. Thomas the long time head of the Bible department at ACU).

Let me address his attempt to use 2Timothy 2:15 to make his point. He fails on two levels. The first is his lack of understanding of Greek. The word means “to cut straight” it has been used in this way since Classical Greek. It is not a mathematical term as he suggests and to use a word that is not understandable or inaccurate is not helpful in translation. The second level is as follows; when one looks at the verse in its context one should recognize that it is being used metaphorically. The approved workman is a phrase used of a carpenter, builder or even blacksmith his work is approve or acceptable when he cuts the material straight. As my wife (who teaches sowing and as a good Ag teacher friend) always tell their students, measure twice cut once. We also have a saying, “do it right the first time.” When it comes to God’s word do it right, measure twice, cut once or God approves of the worker who uses the tool the way it was meant to be used.

The KJV was not accepted in England for several generations after it translation, it was rejected because it was not what the people were use to using, yet it has stood the test of time and stands as one of the great accomplishment in translation. It was translated by a committee not by a single individual. The ASV, NASV, RSV have served the church well. The ASV does not use the same Greek Text as the KJV as the basis for its translation and they actually are very dissimilar translations. The NIV is the most popular modern translation, I believe because of readability. We have raised up a whole generation of non readers and with the progress of technology I fear this will only get worse. We have made it easier for non or even poor readers to read the scripture and if a translation helps to get more people to read then more power to it.

When choosing a translation of the Bible I always tell people to find one that is translated by more than one or two people (a committee is best because no one person can control). Select one that is based on good scholarship and that you will read, if one does not enjoy reading the translation they have selected they will never discover the One and Only God revealed in those scriptures. I use a wide variety of translations but I have chosen to preach from the NIV for most of the last 20 years because it is the one most commonly found in the pews of our churches. I am not, because of my training like most people in the pews or even pulpit. I have over 5 years of university level Greek and I have continued to read from my Greek text for the last 30 years. This does not make me better than anyone just gives me an option that many others do not have when it comes to translations.

The Post-Moderns of this generation are fond of saying, “Why didn’t Shakespeare write in English?” They often say the same thing about the KJV which simply shows their ignorance and lack of historical perspective. It is a beautiful rhythmic language that sings to the heart when read aloud, a joy that too many of this modern day are missing. There is a richness found here that most Post Modernist will never know or experience and we are all diminished by this.

A final word, I have only scratched the surface of the study known as Textual Criticism. This is a subject which a couple of my former professors of devoted their entire lives. The article is interesting but in my estimation elementary, incomplete and flawed on many levels, yet I do applaud his courage and the attempt to discuss a difficult and often divisive subject. The argument over translations has been around since the 2nd century when the first translations were made, some of the earliest were translations into Coptic which is a form of the Egyptian language. There are still Coptic Christians in Egypt today many were injured during the recent up rising. I would venture to guess that the discussion will continue until the Lord returns.

Bob Phillips