From The King James To Modern Translations
By Dr. Herbert Samworth
The
history of the English Bible in the years after the printing of the King James
Version differs greatly from what occurred previously. These years lack the
drama of translators, printers and merchants who hazarded their lives and
fortunes to give the Scriptures to the English people in their vernacular
language. Although this period may be void of the dramatic impact of the
preceding years and flows in a more tranquil stream, an understanding of its
history is important.
A
second distinguishing feature of this period is that William Tyndale and his helpers had access
to only one printed Greek text of the New Testament from which to translate.
This was the text edited by Erasmus and printed by Johannes Froben
during the second decade of the sixteenth century. This Greek text, which later
became known as the Textus Receptus, remained the standard text of the New
Testament until a critical edition, edited by Bishop Brooke F. Westcott and Dr.
F. J. A. Hort, was published in 1881.
For
this reason our study of the English Bible must trace two interrelated
developments: the history and transmission of the Greek text from the time of
Erasmus until the present day; and the various modern English translations
which use the Westcott and Hort New Testament as
their textual base. We will start by giving a brief history of the transmission
of the Greek text from its earliest printed editions to the present.
In
1516 when Johannes Froben requested Erasmus to edit
the Greek New Testament for publication, there is reason to believe that
Erasmus thought a large number of manuscripts would be available for
comparison. However, he had access to only five, the oldest of which dated from
the tenth century. The work was hastily done and Erasmus himself admitted that
it was "precipitously edited." In addition to the Novum
Instrumentum printed in 1516, Erasmus edited and
corrected four other editions of this Greek text in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535
respectively.
After
the death of Erasmus, others continued the work, and editions of the Greek New
Testament in the same textual tradition, although with corrections and use of
other manuscripts, were printed successively at Paris and Geneva by Robert Stephanus (Estienne) and others,
and finally at Leiden by the Elzevir
brothers. In the introduction to the second Elzevir
edition, the editors claimed that the reader now possessed "the text which
is now received by all and in which we give nothing changed or corrupted."
It was from this publishers’ blurb that the phrase Textus
Receptus, as applied to the Greek text of the New
Testament, originated.
The
accuracy of this Greek text was challenged by scholars. The paucity of Erasmus’
manuscripts, their late dates and the fact that he did not have any manuscript
evidence for the last six verses of the Book of the Revelation cast doubt on
its accuracy. Because Erasmus was permitted to choose the readings he
considered the most accurate from the manuscripts available to him, others believed
that they should have the same liberty if manuscripts were located which
contained better attested readings than the ones Erasmus printed.
This
is indeed what occurred. Widespread interest in the Bible, an intensification
of the study of Greek, and advances in related disciplines such as textual
criticism led to the incorporation, in later centuries, of a number of readings
from manuscripts that were unavailable when the Textus
Receptus was printed. Especially important was
the discovery of uncial manuscripts, some of which were dated as early as the
middle of the fourth century A.D. (e. g., the Codex Sinaiticus).
In many places these manuscripts contained readings that differed from those in
the Textus Receptus.
Manuscripts written in a cursive or minuscule script were also recovered during
this time. As a result, the amount of manuscript evidence for the Greek New
Testament increased dramatically, and editors of the Greek New Testament sought
to include these readings in subsequent editions of the Greek New Testament in
order to produce the most accurate text.
An
additional factor that contributed to the reliability and accuracy of the Greek
text was advancement in the art of textual criticism itself. While this
important subject can be complicated, its basic aim is quite straightforward.
It is important to remember that the original manuscripts of the biblical
books, technically called the autographa, have
not survived, and the copies made from these original documents contain
readings, called variants, that do not always agree with one another. The goal
of textual criticism is to formulate and apply rules that enable an editor to
select the variant reading to achieve the most accurate text.
An
illustration of the application of these rules of textual criticism may aid us
in understanding what an editor does. For example, one of the rules of textual
criticism is that a shorter reading is preferable to a longer reading. The
reason for this rule is that a scribe would tend to add words for clarification
or explanation rather than deleting them. Another rule of textual criticism is
that a more difficult reading is to be preferred to a less difficult one. A
scribe would be tempted to add words of explanation that would enable the
reader to understand the meaning of a difficult text rather than leaving such a
reading unexplained. These are just two of the many rules of textual criticism,
and it is important to note that these canons must be applied with discernment
and not in a slavish manner.
Although
the above explanation is greatly simplified, this is basically what occurred in
the years following the printing of the Textus
Receptus edition of the Greek New Testament. The
number of available Greek manuscripts containing additional variant readings
increased, and the art of textual criticism was advanced and refined.
In
1881, Bishop Brooke F. Westcott and Dr. F. J. A. Hort
published a revised Greek New Testament incorporating the newly available
textual evidence. Their edition differed from the Textus
Receptus Greek New Testament in numerous places.
While most of these changes were minor in nature, several were significant.
Prominent among them was a question regarding the ending to the Gospel of Mark.
They expressed doubt about whether the last twelve verses of Mark 16 were part
of the original Gospel. They also believed that the pericope
of the woman taken in adultery, found in John
The
Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament replaced the Textus Receptus as
the standard text of the New Testament. Almost simultaneously with the
publication of their Greek New Testament was an English translation called the British
Revised Version, also printed in 1881, which used the Westcott and Hort Greek text as its textual base. The translation was
done by a committee of scholars from
During
the late-nineteenth and twentieth centuries papyrus texts from the Greek New
Testament were discovered in
Today,
a vast number of manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are available to us.
Responsible scholarship evaluates and incorporates these variant readings to
establish the most accurate text of the Bible. Although one may be of the
opinion that we now possess a biblical text that is close to the text of the
early church, scholars today still debate which variant readings are the
better-attested ones.
It
is one thing to seek to establish the most accurate text of Scripture in the
original languages, but it is another to provide a faithful and readable
translation of that text in another language. This work of translating the
Scriptures into vernacular languages continues today. In some areas of the
world it provides people the Bible in their native language for the first time.
In other countries where there is a heritage of Scripture in the vernacular
language, such as English, the effort to produce the most accurate translation
continues. This work of translation reflects changes of the original text
provided by new manuscript evidence, and changes in spoken languages that occur
over time.
The
task of translating the Scriptures is one of great responsibility. The
translator is required to be faithful to the original text of Scripture, known
as the source language, and must communicate intelligibly in the receptor
language. The work of translation cannot be done in a strictly literal manner.
Accurate translation not only involves the words themselves but must also take
into account the differences in the syntax and grammar of the respective
languages.
There
are two basic theories for translating a source language into a receptor
language. The first is what is called the formal or verbal
equivalence method. Here the translator chooses a word in the receptor
language that corresponds closest to the word in the source language. When this
word occurs in the original text, the translator uses the corresponding word in
the receptor language. This provides a translation that is both accurate and
literal. However, there is another method of translation that is called functional
or dynamic equivalence. Here the translator seeks to determine the
cultural or contextual meaning of the word in the source language and then
translates it into the receptor language with this contextual understanding in
mind. This enables the reader to understand how this word was used in its
historical and cultural context.
An
example will help to demonstrate the differences between these two methods. We
will use the word "blood" for our illustration. In the Bible this
word is frequently used in the context of sacrifices offered to God as
atonement for sins. For the sacrifice to be acceptable, the blood of the victim
must be shed, causing death. A translator following the formal or verbal
equivalence method will use the word "blood" in the English
language where it occurs in the source language because it is formally or
verbally equivalent to that word. However, a translator using the functional
or dynamic equivalence method may use the English word
"death" because of its dynamic (i.e., cultural or historical) meaning
in the source language.
A
third method sometimes used is known as paraphrasing. This is not a
translation of individual words, but of concepts; idiomatic language is used to
communicate the intent of the original text. In this method the emphasis is on
the desire to communicate effectively ideas or concepts in the receptor
language rather than on the meanings of individual words in the original text.
Advocates of this method have been charged with taking undue liberties with the
text of the Bible. Its use has been justified on the basis that it communicates
effectively to people who frequently find other translations of the Scripture
beyond their understanding.
Thus
with the new readings (concerned more with the Greek New Testament than with
the Hebrew Old Testament), the twentieth century has seen a veritable flood of
translations. It is impossible within the confines of this article to deal with
them all. However, some of the more important will be noted as illustrations.
The
King James Version remains popular with a large number of people
although it is often criticized because of its archaic language and its use of
the Textus Receptus
as its textual base, although the term itself was not used until 1633. In an
effort to blunt these strictures, a revision called the New King James Bible
has been prepared. Its purpose is to maintain the traditional popularity of the
original King James Version while modifying the language to reflect
current English usage. The NKJB retains the Textus
Receptus as its textual base.
An
example of a translation from the critical edition of the Greek New Testament
that follows the formal or verbal equivalence method of
translation is the New American Standard Bible, a revision of the American
Standard Version published in 1901. While receiving high marks for its
fidelity to the Greek text and accuracy of translation, it has been criticized
for its heavy and unwieldy English.
The
New International Version is a translation that incorporates the functional
or dynamic equivalence method of translation. The English of the NIV
is more contemporary and follows current usage. However, it has been subjected
to criticism because the translation departs from the formal equivalence
method.
In
1937 a committee, under the auspices of the International Council of Religious
Education, was organized to revise the American Standard Version
"in light of modern scholarship." This revision,
known as the Revised Standard Version was printed in 1946
(New Testament), 1952 (Old Testament) with the Apocryphal Books added in 1957.
The RSV utilized a modified verbal equivalence translation
and retained much of the English style of the King James Version.
In
1990 the Revised Standard Version was updated to include advances in its
textual base, contemporary English, and the use of inclusive language where this
could be done without distorting passages "that reflect the historical
situation of ancient patriarchal culture and society." Generally this
version has been well received in ecumenical circles for the inclusion of the
Apocrypha and gender-neutral language. It has been severely criticized by more
conservative elements for these same reasons and for perceived mistranslations
of certain words such as "young woman" for "virgin" in
Isaiah 7:14.
The Message, a contemporary work undertaken by Eugene Peterson of Regent
College of Vancouver, British Columbia, is a paraphrase that seeks to
put the Scriptures into idiomatic English. Like the versions listed above, it
has received its share of both praise and criticism. It has been lauded for its
ability to communicate the concepts of Scripture in racy English but it also
has been censured for its departure from the traditional norms of verbal
translation.
In
the 1960’s Kenneth Taylor paraphrased the Scriptures for his children to make
them "as meaningful as possible in modern English idiom from a ‘rigid
evangelical position.’" This paraphrase was published in 1971 as
the Living Bible. While it was an extremely successful publishing
venture, it was vilified as distorting the message of Scripture. Despite its
weaknesses, it became very popular among evangelicals in the
In
1996 a thorough revision of the Living Bible was published. A team of
some seventy biblical scholars, in contrast with the virtual one person
production of the Living Bible, was assembled to do the work. The
textual base of the translation was up-dated and the language improved to be
more readable and accurate. As a result the New Living Translation is
more of a dynamic equivalence translation than a paraphrase.
It is claimed to be "the first adult-level Bible translated by evangelical
scholars using the dynamic equivalence method of
translation."
The
above are examples taken from the large number of translations and paraphrases
available today which demonstrate methods of translation but are not what are
called "special interest" Bibles. Special interest Bibles are
directed to individuals or groups who share common concerns and interests. They
usually use one of the popular translations but emphasize certain passages or
verses that highlight the concerns that give the group its identity. For
example, there are Bibles that are edited for those recovering from addiction,
for those that are interested in a discipling
ministry, etc. One has but to look at a Bible catalogue from a major bookstore
to note the variety of these Bibles that are available.
Two
thoughts come to mind as this article concludes. First, we should be thankful
that we have the Bible in our language. There are many who have never seen a
copy of the Scriptures in their native tongue. Second, we must be thankful for
those who have labored faithfully to provide the Scriptures for us. Some, like
John Wyclif and William Tyndale,
lived in more dramatic days and hazarded their lives to accomplish this task.
However, we must also be thankful for those who faithfully worked in less
stressful times and circumstances to insure that a trustworthy translation of
the Scriptures is available to us today.