Bible Translation and the Church

[maklelan]

Last year I published an article in BYU's Religious Educator on Bible translation and the Church. Part of the article addresses the practice of Bible translation more broadly, and how it bears on the Church's approach to Bible translations, and the other is a review of Thomas Wayment's translation of the New Testament. I'd love to hear your thoughts. You can access the article at the link below. 

https://www.academia.edu/39443839/_As_Far_as_It_Is_Translated_Correctly_Bible_Translation_and_the_Church

[Carborendum]

Here is the document.

McClellan, 2019, As Far as It Is Translated Correctly.pdf

[JohnsonJones]

I found it a rather solid paper.  Thanks.

Though I am not rushing out to buy the Study Bible by Thomas Wayment (perhaps, because as much of the rest of the Western World, I currently am told to not go out that much and most of the stores are closed, though I could also order it online where it is more accessible), you make some excellent points regarding the various stages of the Bible, the LDS acceptance of the KJV for English speaking nations and the reasons for utilizing Wayment's work today.

One interesting bit I would like to comment on and that puzzled me slightly.  I was not aware that the Catholic Bible was the approved version (or the official LDS version) for use by the German Saints.  In my time and among some of my relatives I was told that it was the Lutheran Bible (or that translated by Luther,  Bible).  Of interest, I was also told that Joseph Smith supposedly said that the Lutheran Bible was the most correct translation of the Bible at the time (during his life).  I don't know if I was being fed a fable or not, but I did utilize the Luther Bible at the time.  That was decades ago, so things may have changed since then (or, obviously, I may also have been wrongly informed).

Edited April 25, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[maklelan]

43 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I found it a rather solid paper.  Thanks.

Though I am not rushing out to buy the Study Bible by Thomas Wayment (perhaps, because as much of the rest of the Western World, I currently am told to not go out that much and most of the stores are closed, though I could also order it online where it is more accessible), you make some excellent points regarding the various stages of the Bible, the LDS acceptance of the KJV for English speaking nations and the reasons for utilizing Wayment's work today.

One interesting bit I would like to comment on and that puzzled me slightly.  I was not aware that the Catholic Bible was the approved version (or the official LDS version) for use by the German Saints.  In my time and among some of my relatives I was told that it was the Lutheran Bible (or that translated by Luther,  Bible).  Of interest, I was also told that Joseph Smith supposedly said that the Lutheran Bible was the most correct translation of the Bible at the time (during his life).  I don't know if I was being fed a fable or not, but I did utilize the Luther Bible at the time.  That was decades ago, so things may have changed since then (or, obviously, I may also have been wrongly informed).

Joseph Smith commented at one point that he had been "reading the German," which he said he found most accurate, but the identification of that version with the Luther translation is only an educated guess. He didn't explicitly identify "the German" as the Luther, but that's likely what it was.

Yes, the Catholic edition has been the preferred translation in German for many years. The translation was supposed to be an ecumenical project (thus the name Einheitsübersetzung), but by the time it was ready for publication, disagreements had resulted in really only the Catholics being left. There was a new edition published in 2017, and that's now the "preferred" edition. I find it a quite good improvement on the previous version. There are a number of places where it is more faithful to the source texts, but a lot of German-speaking saints have been upset about it. 

[Traveler]

On 4/25/2020 at 8:15 AM, maklelan said:

Last year I published an article in BYU's Religious Educator on Bible translation and the Church. Part of the article addresses the practice of Bible translation more broadly, and how it bears on the Church's approach to Bible translations, and the other is a review of Thomas Wayment's translation of the New Testament. I'd love to hear your thoughts. You can access the article at the link below. 

https://www.academia.edu/39443839/_As_Far_as_It_Is_Translated_Correctly_Bible_Translation_and_the_Church

I scanned through the article and will study it in more depth but I wanted to respond with some initial thoughts.  As a amateur student of scripture - I must rely on the research of others.  But I have been quite concerned with the Bible for a long time as a result of my studies into textual criticism of the Bible.  Below is a summary of some of my primary concerns:

1. There are no original Bible texts.  The text we have are are classified into "families" of text such as Masoretic, Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus and many others.  There are also sub classes within the families.

2. There are no translations of any particular ancient text but rather the modern Bible is a smorgasbord of translations from a large variety of texts from a family or families of texts.  For this reason any modern publication should not be called a "Translation" but rather it should properly be called a "Version".

3. Contrary to popular notion within the religious community - there is not a lot of consistency between the various texts - perhaps I should rephrase this as - there is not as much consistency as those that argue fine points of meaning would ascribe to the validity of translations or solidity of doctrine as applied. 

4. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures has demonstrated that the Old Testament scriptures thought to be the most accurate texts are not.  This means that the prior versions of the Bible, including the King James Version, was not derived from the most accurate texts.  Also we learned from the Dead Sea Scriptures that the ancient scribes maintained multiple versions of the same text rather than one - as is done presently.  I also wonder why the Church does not consider "updated" version of the Bible as our official English version.

5. When I served as a missionary the church did not have an official KJV Bible as we do today.  The KJV that I used has all terms (words) that were in dispute for variant possible readings; printed in italics.   I have found this particular Bible most helpful in my personal scripture study in realizing what terms may not be understood exactly in our English language.  I have pondered why this process is not utilized by the church more in our translations of official church publications into other languages from English.  Like the ancients - I keep several copies of various versions of the Bible in my personal library for study - especially when there are variant readings.

 

I like the attitude of Joseph Smith - that is to teach correct principles (or to supply all the possible information gathered for a correct principle) and let people govern themselves.  I am excited that you have posted on this forum - especially with doctrinal ideas that are more divergent than convergent.  I find myself often taking a more divergent approach to understanding of such principles in response to Isaiah's teaching of line upon line upon line and principle upon principle upon principle.  That often we should look upon doctrine as the "Spirit" may manifest to highlight different or more in depth understanding according to our individual need.

 

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

I have read and compared a various number of English Bibles.  The only Bible versions I really like in my readings are as follows:

Inspired Version of the Bible

King James Version Bible

21st Century King James Version Bible

Anyone interested in searching the 21st Century King James Version Bible version can do so at this website:  https://www.biblegateway.com/

This website gives also more information on the 21st Century King James Version:  http://kj21.com/

[prisonchaplain]

FWIW, the favorite 'cheat' Bible that students taking New Testament Greek (Koine) use is the New American Standard Bible (NASB). It is one of the most literal word-for-word translations in modernity. So, we do our own translating and then use the NASB rendering to see if we were in the ballpark or not. While that version is a great translation checker, it's clumsy to read. Word for word translations are technically the most accurate, but often make for rougher reading than the idea-by-idea ones (New International Version, etc.). I agree with most here, though, that the KJV (and some of its iterations) remains a most beloved translation*...and of course, it's the version of the church.

* I understand @Traveler's point that the original manuscripts for the Bible are not known. Nevertheless, having struggled through a measure of Greek, I'll call anyone able to look at the various manuscripts, making professional linguistic judgment calls, and then--yes--translate from Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) into English a translator.

Edited April 30, 2020 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

FWIW, the favorite 'cheat' Bible that students taking New Testament Greek (Koine) use is the New American Standard Bible (NASB). It is one of the most literal word-for-word translations in modernity. So, we do our own translating and then use the NASB rendering to see if we were in the ballpark or not. While that version is a great translation checker, it's clumsy to read. Word for word translations are technically the most accurate, but often make for rougher reading than the idea-by-idea ones (New International Version, etc.). I agree with most here, though, that the KJV (and some of its iterations) remains a most beloved translation*...and of course, it's the version of the church.

* I understand @Traveler's point that the original manuscripts for the Bible are not known. Nevertheless, having struggled through a measure of Greek, I'll call anyone able to look at the various manuscripts, making professional linguistic judgment calls, and then--yes--translate from Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) into English a translator.

I thought to give an example of variant reading of selective terms and how a phrase and verse can be altered by reading.  The first is a factious example of reading to demonstrate part of the problem.  Often ancient text has confusing spacing and no punctuation.    So one could see the characters listed "G-disnowhere".  This could be translated as "God is no where".  But there is an alternate reading "G-d is now here".  BTW this is not a problem of my invention but used to demonstrate some of the particular problems in translating the Dead Sea Scriptures and now the interpretation of the text can be problematic before translation even begins.  But there is a secondary problem with this and I can give several examples within the scientific community of how long set traditions come into play making new discoveries to be discounted.

Now I will present how a single term can influence scripture.  This is in Matthew 7:23.  For the full context I will quote verses 22 and 23:

Quote

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The particular word in question in verse 23 is "knew".  This particular English word has what we call extent and intent meanings.  The extent meaning is all possible meanings that can be ascribed to the term - which in this case is "knew".  The intent is the precise meaning intended in the use - this is often also call the context.  Though the initial word used in the ancient language may best be translated as knew - there can be better words to portray what was intended in the contextual use.

There is a variant reading where the English word "authorized" is used making the phrase in English to be "I never authorized you".   This particular variant reading has additional meaning as this chapter is closed out in verse 29 and completes a notion in an interesting manner that draws everything together and even gives insight into why the Pharisees (Scribes) accused Jesus of blasphemy and worthy of death.  Here is verse 29:

Quote

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

 The point here is that this little difference can have a significant impact on those claiming authority or authorization to act in the sacred name of Christ (or G-d) from their relationship to G-d through the scriptures or from hearing and observing others teaching and doing sacred works. 

 

The Traveler

Edited May 1, 2020 by Traveler

[Carborendum]

20 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

FWIW, the favorite 'cheat' Bible that students taking New Testament Greek (Koine) use is the New American Standard Bible (NASB). It is one of the most literal word-for-word translations in modernity. So, we do our own translating and then use the NASB rendering to see if we were in the ballpark or not. While that version is a great translation checker, it's clumsy to read. Word for word translations are technically the most accurate, but often make for rougher reading than the idea-by-idea ones (New International Version, etc.). I agree with most here, though, that the KJV (and some of its iterations) remains a most beloved translation*...and of course, it's the version of the church.

* I understand @Traveler's point that the original manuscripts for the Bible are not known. Nevertheless, having struggled through a measure of Greek, I'll call anyone able to look at the various manuscripts, making professional linguistic judgment calls, and then--yes--translate from Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) into English a translator.

PC, sorry to go off topic.  But I'd heard that a certain faction of Christianity has dubbed the NIV as tainted by Satanic influence.  One argument is that the same publishing company also published many satanic bibles and similar occult books.  To me, this was hardly conclusive since many big publishing companies tend to publish a lot of things.  But then they went into several verses cherry picked with their interpretations of how satanic the NIV was.  

I haven't taken the time to listen to or verify all their arguments since I never cared for the NIV, myself.  But I know many evangelicals that swear by it (as it seems you do).

So, my question is: Was this a joke?  Are there really NIV protesters out there?  Or was that just another ONN type piece that I just didn't pay close enough attention?

Edited May 1, 2020 by Carborendum

[MrShorty]

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, my question is: Was this a joke?  Are there really NIV protesters out there?

Obviously, I can't speak for @prisonchaplain. There are factions of Christianity that will call Mormonism Satanic, and that will call Catholicism Satanic, and that will call any use of any translation other than the original King James version Satanic, and that will call the Harry Potter books Satanic and that will call Dungeons and Dragons Satanic and ... (I'm sure there are more). I guess I would not be surprised if there is a faction within Christianity somewhere that would call the NIV Satanic, but, in light of other things that Christians have called Satanic, I would probably find the claim to be extremist and dismiss it on those grounds.

[Still_Small_Voice]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I haven't taken the time to listen to or verify all their arguments since I never cared for the NIV, myself.  But I know many evangelicals that swear by it (as it seems you do).

I am not a fan of the New International Version Bible.  It is a watered down translation of the Bible and not as good and accurate as other English translations out there in my opinion.

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

PC, sorry to go off topic.  But I'd heard that a certain faction of Christianity has dubbed the NIV as tainted by Satanic influence.  One argument is that the same publishing company also published many satanic bibles and similar occult books.  To me, this was hardly conclusive since many big publishing companies tend to publish a lot of things.  But then they went into several verses cherry picked with their interpretations of how satanic the NIV was.  

I haven't taken the time to listen to or verify all their arguments since I never cared for the NIV, myself.  But I know many evangelicals that swear by it (as it seems you do).

So, my question is: Was this a joke?  Are there really NIV protesters out there?  Or was that just another ONN type piece that I just didn't pay close enough attention?

There are two concerns with the NIV. The first is minor, and probably the variant you mention. A very small faction of fundamentalist Christianity (the most conservative, unbending folks) believe that God has ordained the 1611 King James Version of the Bible as the only inspired translation for English speaking people. They have been known to use tactics such as you mention, as well as investigating the personal lives of translators--arguing, for example, that if one of the 70+ translators was divorced how can we trust such a despicable group? Another issue, bigger in my view, is that some are upset with the direction the NIV took post-1984. There was an increased use of gender-neutral language that some argued went beyond the manuscripts (editing rather than translating, I suppose). Some Evangelicals, like myself, continue to use the 1984 translation. Others have transitioned to other versions.

[prisonchaplain]

FWIW, I have taken a particular liking to the New Living Translation. It actually reads at a sightly more accessible level than the NIV. It does so, not through over-fluid idea by idea translating, but by sticking to succinct, clear writing. When I want the classic feel and integrity of the KJV I look to the Modern English Version. It sounds like it might be too flashy,  but instead chose to stay in the same lane as KJV, offering a dignified, mostly word for word translation--almost like a Newer New King James Version. I understand that the English Standard Version is similar, in this--more conservative, focused on accuracy, yet with classic modern wording.

Edited May 1, 2020 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

On 5/1/2020 at 1:21 PM, prisonchaplain said:

FWIW, I have taken a particular liking to the New Living Translation. It actually reads at a sightly more accessible level than the NIV. It does so, not through over-fluid idea by idea translating, but by sticking to succinct, clear writing. When I want the classic feel and integrity of the KJV I look to the Modern English Version. It sounds like it might be too flashy,  but instead chose to stay in the same lane as KJV, offering a dignified, mostly word for word translation--almost like a Newer New King James Version. I understand that the English Standard Version is similar, in this--more conservative, focused on accuracy, yet with classic modern wording.

Normally I use the King James Version published by the church but I have several copies of other versions - including the New World Translation that makes the unique claim of being the only "true" translation.  In addition I have a collection of translations of the Dead Sea Scriptures and many other non Biblical books - like the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jasher.  One set of books of particular interest is the Books of the Patriarchs - that is intended to bridge the gap between Genesis and Exodus and deals with the prophesies of the sons of Israel.   I also have the writings of Josephus and about a dozen books of textual criticisms.  

I have often wondered what kind of background studies are required and suggested for those like yourself that have a degree from a divinity college.  It seems that some I have conversed with seem well informed while others - not so much.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

28 minutes ago, Traveler said:

- including the New World Translation that makes the unique claim of being the only "true" translation. ... I have often wondered what kind of background studies are required and suggested for those like yourself that have a degree from a divinity college.  It seems that some I have conversed with seem well informed while others - not so much.

As FYI, the New World Translation is the official Bible of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's most famous translation is of John 1:1, towards the end, where it reads: and the Word was a god. It's suspect outside of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement, in large part, because the religion has its own translation. Of course, if the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society really is the faithful servant, then of course . . .

As for qualifications to translate or discuss Bible translations, my school is probably typical of more conservative, Evangelical schools in requiring a minimum of two years of Bible language study. We had the choice of two-years of Greek or one year each of Greek and Hebrew. I had heard that the first year students learn the rules and the second year they learn that those rules are far from 100%. So...I took two years of Greek. It was one of my weakest areas though: Humility 501 & 601, so to speak.

Students at more liberal institutions are often not required to study biblical languages. Likewise, fundamentalist schools may not require languages if they are KJV-only.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

As FYI, the New World Translation is the official Bible of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's most famous translation is of John 1:1, towards the end, where it reads: and the Word was a god. It's suspect outside of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement, in large part, because the religion has its own translation. Of course, if the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society really is the faithful servant, then of course . . .

As for qualifications to translate or discuss Bible translations, my school is probably typical of more conservative, Evangelical schools in requiring a minimum of two years of Bible language study. We had the choice of two-years of Greek or one year each of Greek and Hebrew. I had heard that the first year students learn the rules and the second year they learn that those rules are far from 100%. So...I took two years of Greek. It was one of my weakest areas though: Humility 501 & 601, so to speak.

Students at more liberal institutions are often not required to study biblical languages. Likewise, fundamentalist schools may not require languages if they are KJV-only.

I am well aware of the New World Translation connections.  I have had some interesting discussions with JW's concerning the impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on their translation, textual criticisms and their religion in general.  It is my personal observation but even though JW's prosolight heavily, they seem very out of touch with new discoveries - especially with science.  I have never been able to establish any kind of friendship to have inside access.  Generally I have found the Catholics are the most open about textual criticisms - despite that such shins most critically on their history.  I am not an expert but it seems that the Orthodox are somewhat internally divided.  Almost 200 years ago a cash of New Testament scripture text were discovered near Mount Sinai.   This great find has never been opened to the world and has remained under Eastern Orthodox control.  The text fell into the hands of the Communists in Russia and were given back with the fall of Communism.  I was involved with some local Orthodox to have this opened to the public when they were returned but it seems that there is strong opposition.  We were not even able to get a complete list of the text.  Some of these texts could qualify as autogram originals of the New Testament because of carbon dating but it is unlikely I will get to know much more concerning these sacred texts during my lifetime.

 

I believe that everyone has their individual spiritual gifts.  Like you, in some ways, language is not my shinning accomplishment - English has been one of my greatest scholastic nemesis.  

 

The Traveler