Textual Thoughts - Part One:  Choices, Choices

By Johnnie Sloan  

          Have you ever had to make a difficult choice?  That is not a silly question.  Have you?  I am not first thinking of decisions that are not difficult i.e. paper-or-plastic-type decisions.  Although that one, given the recent fervor of environmentalism, is not as easy to make anymore.  I thought the plastic bags saved trees.  Which is it...save trees or hurt the ozone?  I digress.  I am positive the reader can think of the tough choices.  To homeschool your kids or not?  To buy a house or rent?  To marry that guy or not?  Major decisions indeed.

          Now give some further thought to less important decisions or choices.  What color of car?  Which brand of shoe?  Italian or Mexican food for dinner (that will always be Mexican for this writer by the way).  Try and recall the last time you had that discussion with someone about where or what you were going to eat for dinner.  Have you ever had the endless discussions my wife and I have?  How can something so trivial occupy so much mental energy?

          Now answer this question: how much mental energy did you expend picking out which Bible translation you currently use or carry to church?  Did the mental energy reflect a tough decision (car, marriage, kids) or an easy one (shoes, dinner, colors)?  I am sure when purchasing a car you did not look at the instrument panel in the dashboard and say, “the numbers are easy to read, so this is the car for me!”  What is important when purchasing a vehicle?  Is it not safety, reliability, mileage, reputation of the manufacturer and value?  Is safety above style in a right-thinking person?

          How can this be less true in our consideration of the version and its foundation of the copy of the Scriptures we utilize?  The reader may now be in a quandary.  What specifically are you addressing, one might ask?  What makes a good car better than a bad one?  What makes one translation preferable over another?  In this article, I may not answer that question to any satisfaction, nor is it the primary goal to do so (further writings hopefully).  What I desire here is to spark God’s people to be responsible with something we claim is very important to us.  If there are things that make or break a translation (and I think there are), should we not be aware of it - and further aware of what tendencies, if any, might hurt us?

          To make this point, I’ll ask the reader to answer a series of questions related to translations and follow this up with a challenge: 

1. What is the difference in translation philosophy between Dynamic Equivalence and Essentially Literal versions.  Can you name three prevalently used versions of each? 

2. Which group of manuscripts is behind your current version? 

3. Are you certain that the manuscripts behind your version of the Bible have been accepted and revered in the Christian community since the beginning of the Church? 

4. Can you express why the modern versions should be preferred to the King James version?  Wait!  Before you answer that one, what if I say you cannot argue that the King James is hard to understand because of the “thees and thous”?  In other words can you argue from a position other than readability?

5. Do you know how the text of the Bible got from the original authors into your hands? 

These are just a few things I think the serious student of the Bible ought to have at least an elementary grasp on.  There are many things at work here.  There is the doctrine of Inspiration and what it entails e.g. if only the autographs (originals) are inspired, how do we know what the original says if two manuscripts or whole manuscript families (text-types) differ on a verse?  I’ll give an example of this below.  Theories of Textual Criticism: the transmission of the text and guidelines as to how to determine preferred (original to the best of our ability) readings.  Translation philosophy which comes out of these textual theories.  And finally, actual exegesis or Bible study using the convictions drawn from these things.

If the reader is normal, this is an intimidating concept.  We do not study our own language fervently as a rule.  How are we going to tackle the Bible languages or how they get translated.  Fear not!  I am not suggesting a wholesale exodus of the people of God into full time textual studies.  I am exhorting them however to develop some working knowledge and a conviction of textual theory and where it leads.  We say the Bible is important to us.  Is it too much to ask for us to qualify what we think the Bible is when we say this?  Are we satisfied to say we believe the Word of God, not knowing with a serious conviction how He has given it to us?  I believe God has preserved His inspired Word to be absolutely certain, but I also believe “it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.” 1 Corinthians 4:2.  To be faithful to the Word is not only content related, but textually related as well.  The Bible is not only words, it is an ancient text to be understood technically too.  Not necessarily as an expert, but as a student.  I do not need to be a mechanic to be a good driver, but I had better know how to put gas and oil in the car if I’m going to get anywhere.  That is what I want for the reader. 

Here are some examples for the reader to work on and hopefully to encourage further study: 

1. Finish this verse (1 John 4:19) from memory by filling in the blank:

“____________________ because He first loved us.” 

The New International Version - NIV (made almost exclusively for readability and not as much for literal accuracy), the New American Standard Version - NASB (considered one of the most literal versions of modern times) and the English Standard Version - ESV (the newest and very popular essentially literal translation) all translate the above blank as simply “We love...” 

          It is my guess that the reader inserted in the blank “We love Him...” in the blank.  Do you know why?  What is the basis for this difference in the translations?  You’ll note it is not a matter of readability, for the NIV, NASB and the ESV all read the same and are all quite different in translation philosophy.  Is there something different in the original?  Which manuscripts are behind these as opposed to the King James - KJV or the New King James Versions - NKJV?  Why do these two contain the pronoun “Him” when the above three do not?

          This example is significant because it involves specific doctrines.  Is it that we love generally because we have received love?  Is it that we cannot love God without Him first loving us as we believe is taught in the Doctrines of Grace?  Is it both?  In order to be good stewards of the Word these questions need good answers.  And the answer does not come first Theologically but textually.  We are not to decide what a text means prior to knowing what it says.  This is called eisegesis (reading something into the text of Scripture) and we want to do exegesis (bringing out of the text what is there).

          The cat out of the bag here is that the manuscripts of the larger text-type that the church has held as a “standard text”, usually called the “Majority” text  have the pronoun while the smaller group known as the “Critical” text do not.  This begs the question, “which group is better?”  For now, I’ll simply say it is my conviction that the Majority is better and the pronoun belongs.  I hope to write more on this in the near future, hence the title above is Part One. 

2. How about these two: 

First: 1 Thessalonians 4:1 

NIV - Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 

ESV - Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. 

NKJV - Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God 

Here, the difficulty is in translation more so than manuscripts.   The first two (NIV and ESV) are from the Critical text and the third (NKJV) is from the Majority (specifically a portion of the Majority known as the Received Text... hopefully more info in that coming writing of mine).  But, you’ll notice the reading of the ESV resembles the NKJV more than the NIV which is translated from the same manuscripts.  Why is this so?  Why does the NIV often translate the Greek verb for “walk” into the English “live”?  Does it make a difference?  Did Adam in the Garden prior to the fall live with God or is there a particular reason the word walk is used over and over in the original Scriptures?  Abraham and Noah are said to have walked with God.  So is this Old Testament idea of closeness with God adequately expressed in “live”?  I think not.

          The cat out of the bag here is that readability in some instances rules out over the proper meaning of the original.  What if making the text more readable loses the meaning of the original?  A very important question.  

Second: 1 John 2:2 

NIV - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 

NKJV - And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 

          Here as well as the previous, it is a question more of translation than manuscript.  Readability wins out in the NIV, so that “atoning sacrifice” is preferred over “propitiation.”  This one can prove to be outright dangerous.  It is more interpretation than translation.  You see, the word atonement is somewhat general compared to propitiation.  Atonement is sacrificial of course and Christ is the sacrifice for sins, but the word in the original has to do with removing (propitiating) or appeasing the wrath of God.  Sacrifice deals with guilt, propitiation deals with wrath.  This is very specific.  In modern times, God being angry is not a popular doctrine, so it gets tamed in various ways and I think this is one that sneaks into the translations. 

          I have already written here more than expected, but I hope it is clear that we as Bible believing Christians ought to take seriously the Bible we say we believe.  Not just what it means, but what it actually says.  There is no reason to doubt that God has preserved His Word in modern translations and that we can be assured that we are completely equipped (2 Timothy 3:17) to live a life pleasing to the Lord.  But this faith in the Providence of God does not relieve us of the duty of diligence in study.  I truly hope time will afford me an opportunity to share more specifically some of the tools, information and methods with you in the very near future.  It is a fascinating study to see God maintaining His people through His Word in history.  We do not want go to sleep on the job and let men do our thinking for us.  This is the type of mental sluggishness that lead to a need for reformation in the 16^th century and a reawakening of the people of God to the Word of God.  One of my professors calls the Reformation a “back to the Bible movement.”  And there was a huge emphasis in this movement on the texts as well as the Text.

          As a homework assignment until the next writing, read the introductory material in your English Bibles and read critically.  Think of yourselves asking the men involved in the translation process some of the questions posed in this paper.  Which manuscripts did you use?  Which is more important readability or accuracy?  Who was King James anyway?  Let’s work together in making good choices with the text itself as well as what it requires of us.  These choices involved in the text of Scripture are monumentally more important than those of shoes, cars and houses. 

Isaiah 40:8

 Praise the Lord!  There is nothing but clarity in that promise!  In all versions.

To Be Continued...