~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~

As we have seen earlier, the Old Testament Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew (except for a few verses in Aramaic) and the New Testament, Greek. Since these languages are spoken today by only a small fraction of the world's people, for the most part we are dependent upon translations of the Bible in order to be able to read and understand it. The translation of Scripture is the changing of it from Hebrew and Greek into other languages. Our English Bibles, regardless of what version we use, is a translation of the Scriptures.

Jesus told His disciples in "the Great Commission" (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15) to preach the gospel in all the nations of the world. In Matthew 24:14 He said that this would be accomplished before the end of the world would come. From the earliest times in Christianity, evidently even the first century, the Church considered it a necessary part of this task to translate the Bible into the native languages of the people who heard and believed the gospel message. After all, how could they know what the Lord requires of His disciples if they didn't have the Bible in their own languages? This early emphasis on translation was somewhat stifled later as Roman Catholicism grew to dominate the Western world, however. The Roman Church came to rely entirely upon the Latin translation and priests used only Latin in their services called masses in every nation in which it was established. Common people were considered too ignorant and unspiritual to read and in-terpret the Bible for themselves anyhow, so they thought. The people were for the most part entirely dependent upon the priests and the Church to tell them what they must believe and do, and much of this came to be based, not on the Scripture, but tradition and Church teaching. It was therefore to the advantage of the church rulers that there not be a translation of Scripture into the common language of the people. With the Protestant Reformation, however, there was a return to the earlier principle that Bible translation into the common languages of the people of all lands was a necessary part of evangelizing and discipling the world in obedience to Christ's command.

Before the tower of Babel was built in Genesis 11 the whole world spoke only one language. But ever since then, when God confused the builders' languages so they could not understand one another and finish the tower, the world has been separated by barriers of difference in language between one people and another.

According to one estimate,there are 6,170 languages in the world today (with many others having long since disappeared). Hebrew is spoken only by the Jewish people, who make up only a tiny fragment of the world's population. Actually, most Jews throughout the world do not speak Hebrew but the languages of the nations in which they have been scattered; nevertheless, Hebrew remains the official language of the modern nation of Israel. At the time the NT was written, much of the world could speak Greek due to the conquest of the world four centuries earlier by Alexander the Great and the establishment of the Greek language and culture as the standard for much of the world. But only a few centuries after the writing of the NT, only a small fraction of the world's people could speak Greek. Besides, even while Greek was still the official world language, many common people never learned it or knew it well, retaining their native languages. Today modern Greek, which is not at all the same as NT Greek, is the language of only the tiny nation of Greece. Because the Bible is written in Hebrew and Greek, and since only a relatively small number of people can speak these languages, in order to be able to read and understand the Bible, everyone must either 1) learn Biblical Hebrew and Greek or 2) depend upon the translation of the Bible into their language. Since the first is impractical if not impossible, the only real alternative is to translate the Bible into the world's languages.

To translate any writing from one language into another is difficult. When the material to be translated is highly developed literature like most of the Bible is, the task is more difficult. Add to this that the Bible was written 3600-2000 years ago in another culture, the difficulty is enormous. Languages not only look and sound different, they are not equal in many other ways. It is inevitable, no matter how careful and skilled the translator is, that some meaning will be either lost or distorted in the process. Translators are not inspired as the authors of Scripture were and therefore can and do make mistakes. No translation of Scripture is perfect, completely free from error. Since our doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture says that the Bible is inerrant, we must restrict our doctrine of inspiration, in the strictest sense, to apply only to the autographs of Scripture. This is not to say, however, that our English Bibles, for instance, are not the inspired Word of God in a general sense. It simply means that, more properly speaking, our Bibles are a translation of copies of the inspired Word of God. Our Bibles are the inspired Word of God only to the degree that the Hebrew and Greek texts on which they are based and the translation of them faithfully represent the autographs of Scripture.

The translation of Scripture is certainly nothing new. The first translation of the Bible (only the OT was available at the time) into another language, at least that we know about, was made beginning in the 3rd C. B.C. in Egypt. You may remember from the book of Jeremiah (42 and 43) how many of the Jewish people who were not carried off as prisoners to Babylon but were allowed to stay in Israel after their temple and Jerusalem were destroyed in 587 B.C. rebelled against God's will and went down to live in Egypt. Jeremiah had urged them by the Spirit of God not to go, but they went anyhow, and Jeremiah loyally went with them and probably was murdered by them there. From at least this time even to the present day there were Jewish people living in Egypt. Later in 332 B.C. when Alexander the Great founded the city of Alexandria after his name on the Mediterranean coast, Jews made up a major part of the city's population. Because it was, naturally, a Greek-speaking city, the Jewish citizens soon forgot Hebrew and spoke only Greek. They themselves needed

a translation of the OT Scriptures in order to carry on their faith and worship. A secondary reason for the translation may have been that the royalty there wished to have a copy in their library. This translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek came to be called the Septuagint. The word comes from the Latin meaning "seventy." The Septuagint is often designated by the abbreviation "LXX", the Roman numerals for "70". It was given this name because there were 72 Jewish scholars assigned to the task of translating (6 for each of the 12 tribes of Israel), and, according to legend, they finished their work in only 72 days! In addition, the legend goes that each worked independently of the others, but when they brought their translations together, they found that each agreed with the others perfectly word for word which was a sign of God's inspiration and approval! It is more likely, according to surviving fragments and quotes of the Greek translation of the Scriptures, that several "unofficial" versions preceded the authorized or official version which was made by scholars around 100 B.C. This official version was a revision of the earlier ones and contained only the Pentateuch because it was this section of the OT that was read by course from beginning to end through the year on the Sabbaths in the synagogue. Some other sections of the OT were read only occasionally in public services. For several reasons the Jewish leadership and people lost interest in either completing the OT in Greek in an "official" version (the rest had already been made available in unofficial versions) or in using it at all. In fact they came to repudiate the LXX and wished it had never been made. Not the least reasons for this was that from the very first century A.D. the Christians came to use the Septuagint as their OT to which the writings of the New were added in time, giving them an all-Greek Bible for use in many areas of the world at that time as Christianity quickly spread. A new Greek translation from the then recently-standardized Hebrew text, however, was made for Jews in the second century by a man named Aquila. And towards the end of the same century Theodotion made yet another Greek translation for Jews. The reason Christians liked the old LXX was because in many of the prophecies, it suited the Christian interpretation even better than the Hebrew; so it was looked upon as a divine attestation of Christian doctrine providentially prepared hundreds of years beforehand. And for the same reason the old LXX was hated by the Jews and had to be replaced by the versions of Aquila and Theodotion which obscured the references Christians used in support of their doctrines.

The LXX has been and still is valuable to Christianity for several reasons. First, it is helpful in OT textual criticism, as we discussed earlier. It bears witness to the Hebrew text in the centuries before Christ and before the official "standardization" of the Hebrew text in the time of Christ. Second, the writers of the NT often quoted from the LXX. Third, the writers of the NT had, from the LXX, a ready-made source of Greek words to use in place of OT Hebrew words and concepts for writing the NT. This provided an important link between the Old and New Testaments that brought harmony to the whole completed Bible. The true meaning of many Greek words in the NT, then, have their source in their OT Hebrew counterparts-not in the pagan usage of these Greek words; words such as "law," "atonement," etc. The Septuagint is an invaluable key to under-standing the NT.

In the early centuries Christians came to view the Septuagint as the divinely inspired Word of God even more than the Hebrew OT was! The great uncial MSS we talked about earlier such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which were originally essentially whole Bibles have the Septuagint for their OT.

Due to the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the world in the first few centuries A.D., there arose a need for translations of the Scriptures into other languages because not all the people used Greek. Some of these earliest translations include Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Central Asian, Arabic, Gothic, and Slavonic versions. The earliest of these, as we have said, play a role in determining the original text of the NT.

Christianity was introduced to the land east of the Tigris River, east of ancient Nineveh, before the end of the first century. Soon this Syrian Church penetrated eastward into the center of Asia as far as China. There is yet today the remnants of ancient churches in India who use the Syriac language and the Syriac translation of the Bible in their worship. The standard Syriac version is known as the Peshitta. Evidently the earliest Syriac OT was made from Hebrew by Jews who preceded the spread of Christians into this area. This Syriac OT was then taken over by the Christians to which they added a translation of the NT. In the early days, there were differing versions of the Syriac NT; then these were revised and "standardized" into the Peshitta by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, from 411 to 435.

Portions at least of the NT were first translated into Latin most likely by the last quarter of the second century. The church at Rome remained Greek-speaking for the first two centuries, so they didn't need a Latin translation. But in North Africa, which had earlier been conquered by the Romans, Latin was used, especially in the more important cities by the upper educated classes. Christianity spread there by the middle of the second century, so it was here that the need for a Latin translation first arose. Remember that Tertullian of Carthage, c. 200 A.D., was the first of the "early fathers" to write in Latin instead of Greek; he was followed by Cyprian in Carthage, Novation in Europe, then Augustine of Hippo in Africa, all of whom wrote in Latin. And the same situation no doubt existed with Latin as with the Syriac translation- at first there were competing versions in circulation. These are known collectively as the "Old Latin" versions, and there are many more MSS of this that have survived than of the early Syriac versions. Again, these are useful in Greek NT textual study because of their early date. In time, however, the number of different Latin texts became quite confusing, so Damasus, bishop of Rome, commissioned Jerome, his secretary, to revise, correct, and standardize the Latin version. Jerome began his work in 382 and was eminently qualified for it. First, he translated the Four Gospels, then some OT books including Psalms from the Septuagint. But he soon realized translating from the Septuagint was unsatisfactory, so he moved to Bethlehem and took up the study of Hebrew under a Rabbi so he could translate into Latin fresh from the Hebrew text. He finished the 0T in 405 A.D. Jerome's version met with great opposition at first (as nearly all translations, including the King James Version, have) and did not overcome the Old Latin versions for some time. In fact, his version of Psalms from Hebrew never did replace the Latin translation from the Septuagint, called the "Gallican Psalter." The people were simply too attached to the old familiar words and sounds. Most of the common people and less educated clergy resisted the changing of the versions with which they had become so accustomed; they were also outraged that Jerome had disregarded the "divinely inspired" Septuagint in favor of the original Hebrew! They accused Jerome of leaning towards Judaism and trying to undermine Christianity. Even Augustine, it is said, advised Jerome not to translate from the Hebrew but the LXX. However, as soon as it was finished Augustine and other top theologians immediately recognized the superiority of Jerome's version and began to use it in their writings instead of the older versions. Jerome's version came to be known as the Vulgate. This Latin Bible is important because through the Roman Catholic Church it became the standard version for all the western world until the Reformation. It remains the official version of Catholicism, although since Vatican II in 1962 Catholic translations have been sanctioned from Hebrew and Greek into other lan-guages. The Vulgate was revised in 1592 and is called the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. Later other revisions were undertaken but not completed. The Latin Vulgate as well as the Latin language in general has had a lot of influence on English and the English Bible. Words like "justify" and "sanctify" are derived from Latin.

Armenia, located north of Syria, was very early evangelized by the Syrian church. Early Armenian versions were made from Syriac. The now standard Armenian version dates from the 5th C. and was translated from a Greek Bible from Constantinople.

Georgia, which was next to be evangelized near the close of the 3rd C. by the very active Syrian church, lies north of Armenia. Again, at first there was an Old Georgian version, preserved in several MSS, then the standard Georgian Bible made from a later Byzantine text. The Old Georgian version MSS show it was translated from Armenian, which means it was a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation-Georgian from Armenian from Syriac from the Greek LXX!

Coptic is a later form of the ancient Egyptian language and was the speech of the native peoples there even after Greek spread to their country. The first translation into this language was made in the 3rd or 4th century.

Ethiopia is located just south and east of Egypt, and a translation was made into their language in the early centuries, one version of which was made from the Syriac. The NT was rendered into Arabic from Syriac, Coptic, and Greek only after the time of Muhammad (570-632). The Arabic OT was made from the Hebrew in the 10th century.

The Goths, a Germanic tribe who ransacked Rome in 410, had been evangelized starting in the the 3rd C. Their bishop was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The NT was translated into Gothic by his successor in the mid-300's. The Gothic Bible is important because it is the oldest by far of any version in the Germanic language group, of which English is a part.

The Greek Bible was translated into Slavonic (forerunner of the Slavakian languages) in the late 9th century.

During the Middle Ages the Scriptures were translated into a number of European languages from Old Latin. Most of these were associated with the work of the pre-Reformation Waldensians. (Source for the above section: The Books and the Parchments,F.F. Bruce; Pickering & Inglis, Ltd.: London; 1953, 141-155,181-208)

The history of the Bible in English is a fascinating story in and of itself. History records that three British bishops attended the Council of Arles in 314, so Christianity had already spread to Britain by this time. A monk named Pelagius (370-450) who was involved in a great theological dispute with Augustine over grace, predestination, and free will was the first important British Christian writer. But he wrote his commentaries in Latin, just as all the leaders of the western European church did. The earliest known attempt to translate any of the Bible into English was by a monk named Caedmon in the seventh century. He turned portions of the Old and New Testaments into songs and poems to teach outstanding Bible stories. Another man named Bede is said to have finished translating the Gospel of John into English on his deathbed in 735, but no fragments of this, if true, remain that we know of. Alfred the Great, a well-educated king who reigned from 871-899 used the Ten Commandments in English; he also translated the Psalms. A translation called the Lindisfarne Gospels was made around 950. It consisted of a copy of the Gospels in Latin in which a priest named Aldred wrote a literal English rendering called a gloss in between the Latin lines. In the same period an Old English version of the Gospels called the Wessex Gospels was made. Aelfric in the late 10th C. made translations of Bible portions including the first seven books of the Bible into everyday English. Both William of Shoreham and Richard Rolle translated the Psalms into English in the 1300's. Towards the end of the 14th C. a translation of the major epistles of the NT was made for monks and nuns. Later Acts and other portions were added.

It is interesting to see how much the English language has changed since the Middle Ages. For example, here is a quotation from the Anglo-Saxon (Old English) version of the Gospel of John (1:1-5):

On fruman waes word [In beginning was word],

And thaet word waes mid Gode [And that word

was with God],

And God waes thaet word.

Thaet waes on frumen mid Gode [That was in beginning with God].

Ealle thing waeron geworhte thurh hyne [All things were made through him],

And nan thing naes geworht butan him [And no thing was made without him].

Thaet waes lif the on him geworht waes [That was life that in him was made].

And thaet lif waes manna leoht [And that life

was men's light];

And thaet leoht lyht on thystrum [And that

light shown in darkness],

And thystro thaet ne genamon [And darkness

that (light) did not take].

Part of King Alfred's translation of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-7) reads:

"Drihten waes sprecende thaes word to Moses, and thus cwaeth [Lord was speaking these words to Moses, and said thus]: Ic eam Drihten thin God (I am the Lord thy God]. Ic the ut gelaedde of Aegypta londe and of heora theowdome [I led thee out of the land of Egypt and its thraldoml. Ne lufa thu othre fremde godas ofer me [Not love thou other strange gods over me]. Ne minne naman ne cig thu on idelnesse [Not my name utter thou in idleness]"....(Above two quotations from John Wyclif and the English Bible; Melvin M. Carmack; American Tract Society: New York; 1938, pp.38,39)

Here is a quotation from the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:3-8 in the Wessex Gospels:

"Sothlice ut eode se sawere his saed to sawenne. And tha tha he seaw, sumu hie feollon with weg, and fuglas comon and aeton tha. Sothlice sumu feollon an staenihte, thaer hit naefde micle eorthan, and hraedlice up sprungon, for thaem the hie naefdon thaere eorthan diepan; sothlice, up sprungenre sunnan, hie adrugodon and forscruncon, for thaem the hie naefdon wyrtruman. Sothlice sumu feollon on thornas, and tha thornas weoxon, and forthrysmdon tha. Sumu sothlice feollon an gode eorthan, and sealdon waestm, sum hundfealdne, sum siestigfealdne, sum thirtigfealdne." (The English Bible, F.F. Bruce; Oxford U. Press:NY; 1961, p.8)

The first entire Bible to be translated into English bears the name of John Wycliffe (c. 1329-1384). His, as well as all the English translations before it, were made from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe was the great forerunner of the Reformation and for this reason has been called the "Morningstar of the Reformation." He spoke out sharply against Roman Catholic errors and abuses such as the primacy of the Pope, the sale of indulgences, transubstantiation, the riches and extrava-gance and immorality of the church and its leaders, etc. He preached that men should return to the Bible as the sole authority in religion. "We should acknowledge," he wrote, "that to the Holy Scripture an infinitely greater authority is due than to any other book...We ought to believe in the authority of no man, unless he say the Word of God. It is impossible that any word or any deed of the Christian should be of equal authority with Holy Scripture." He added also that every man whether clergy or laity had the right to examine the Bible for himself. These were revolutionary (and declared heretical) ideas. (Source for the above section except quotes noted: The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, Philip W. Comfort; Tyndale House: Wheaton,IL; 1991, pp.38,39)

But since the whole Bible was not available to the people of Britain in their own language, Wycliffe conceived of making an English translation. The Pope tried to silence him, but the Oxford University officials where he taught and government leaders stood behind him. There are actually two Wycliffe versions, neither of which are directly his own work (though we was certainly more than capable of it). Both were done by his friends and students. The earlier one was made from 1380 to 1384 while he was still alive and the later one was a revision by John Purvey, an associate, that came out around 1395 after both he and Wycliffe were dead. The early version is an extremely literal rendering of the Latin and no doubt was a disappointment even to Wycliffe. Purvey's revision was much better and became very popular in spite of Catholic attempts to suppress it by threatening severe punishments on anyone who dared to possess it. The first version of Hebrews 1:1-3 reads:

"Manyfold and many maners sum tyme God spek-

inge to fadris in prophetis, at the laste in thes daies spak to us in the sone: whom he ordeynede eyr of alle thingis, by whom he made and the worldis. The which whanne he is the schynynge of glorie and figure of his substance, and berynge alle thinis bi word of his vertu, makyng purgacioun of synnes, sittith on the righthalf of mageste in high thingis; so moche maad betere than aungelis, by how moche he hath inherited a more different, or excellent, name bifore hem."

It corresponds word for word to the Latin, even in the order of the words, which cannot but be bad English. The later version of the same verses reads:

"God, that spak sum tyme by prophetis in many maneres to oure fadris, at the laste in these daies he hath spoke to vs bi the sone; whom he hath ardeyned eir of alle thingsis, and bi whom he made the worldis. Which whanne also he is the brightnesse of glorie, and figure of his substance, and berith alle thingis bi word of his vertu, he makith purgacioun of synnes, and syttith on the righthalf of the maieste in heuens; and so myche is maad betere than aungels, bi hou myche he hath eneritid a more dyuerse name bifor hem."

There are nearly 200 copies of the later Wycliffe Bible in existence, all of which were copied by hand since the printing press was not yet invented. This Wycliffe version held the field 150 years until Tyndale's Version replaced it. John Hus of Bohemia (Czechoslo- vakia) was one of the most famous followers of Wycliffe. Hus was burned at the stake in 1415. In 1428, 44 years after his death, Wycliffe's bones were ordered dug up and burned and thrown into the nearby Swift River. As the 17th C. church historian Thomas Fuller wrote, "Thus this brook hath conveyed his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into the narrow seas, they into the main ocean. And thus the ashes of Wycliffe are the emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispersed all the world over." (Carmack, op.cit., p.22)

The Roman Catholics knew that if the people had the Bible in their own language, they would see that the church's teachings were in error and many would no longer submit to their system. Also, the lives of the clergy were very corrupt and the people would see their deeds condemned in the Bible. Often those who were caught with their Bibles were burned at the stake with their Bibles tied around their necks. (Section above except Carmack quote, Eng. Bible, op.cit., pp.13-16)

Ten years after Wycliffe's death, Henry Knighton, a Roman Catholic historian, angrily expressed his church's sentiments:

"This Master John Wyclif translated into the Anglic-not Angelic-tongue, the Gospel that Christ gave to the clergy and the doctors of the Church, that they might minister it gently to laymen and weaker persons, according to the exigence of their time, their personal wants, and the hunger of their minds; whence it is made vulgar by him, and more open to the reading of laymen and women than it usually is to the knowledge of lettered and intelligent clergy; and thus the pearl of the Gospel is cast forth and trodden under the feet of swine." (Carmack, op.cit., p.50)

Then came the great revival of learning called the Renaissance along with the invention of printing and the Reformation. Erasmus first published a Greek text of the NT in 1516, which was followed by other editions in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. One or the other of these was used by Martin Luther to translate the Bible into German, which he completed in 1534 (the NT in 1522) and revised each year until 1545 shortly before his death. Scriptures were also translated into French and Italian.

William Tyndale was the first to translate the NT into English from a Greek text instead of Latin. His was also the first English NT to be printed despite the continued popularity of the Wycliffe version. He was determined, in his own words, to "make the boy that drives the plough in England know more of Scripture" than learned men or the Pope. The authorities in England denied his attempt to translate the NT, so he was forced to flee to the Continent where his NT was printed in 1525-1526. When copies arrived in England the Bishop of London confiscated as many as he could and burned them. Others attacked it as heresy because Tyndale abandoned ecclesiastical terms like "church," "priest," "penance," "charity," etc., for more common words such as, respectively, "congregation," "senior," "repentance," "love," etc. His translation was bold and free, good flowing English. He revised it in 1534 and again in 1535, but it is the 1534 edition that is considered his best. He also undertook to translate the OT and finished the Pentateuch, Jonah, Genesis, and the historical books to II Chronicles, but was cut short of completion by his arrest in Antwerp, Belgium, and imprisonment near Brussels. He was strangled and burned at the stake at Vilvorde on October 6, 1536. His final words were, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." While he had been in prison, an associate named Miles Coverdale completed an entire English Bible which was made up of all Tyndale's work plus the rest of the OT on his own. In a great twist of irony, the King of England in 1537, just one year after Tyndale's martyrdom, gave his official approval to Coverdale's version even though it was substantially Tyndale's which he had just before so vigorously opposed!

The wording, style, and phrasing of Tyndale's version greatly influenced all subsequent English versions right up through the King James Bible of 1611. The following is the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Tyndale's 1534 version:

"A certayne man descended from Heirusalem in to Hierico, and fell in to the hondes of theves, which robbed him of his rayment and wounded him, and departed levynge him halfe deed. And by chaunce ther came a certayne preste that same waye, and when he sawe him, he passed by. And lykewyse a Levite, when he was come nye to the place, went and loked on him, and passed by. Then a certayne Samaritane, as he iornyed, came nye vnto him, and when he sawe him, had compassion on him, and went to and bounde vp his woundes, and poured in oyle and wyne, and put him on his awne beaste, and brought him to a commen ynne, and made provision for him. And on the morowe when he departed, he toke out two pence and gave them to the host, and sayde vnto him. Take cure of him, and whatsoever thou spendest moare, when I come agayne, I will recompence the. Which now of these thre, thynkest thou, was neighbour vnto him that fell into the theves hondes? And he sayde: he that shewed mercy on him. Then sayde Iesus vnto him. Goo and do thou Tyke wyse."

Coverdale's version of the Psalms still appears today in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer. A number of Coverdale's renderings have survived in the KJV, i.e., "lordly dish" (Judges 5:25), and "enter thou into the joy of thy lord" (Matthew 25:21,23). Much of his NT is merely a transcript of Tyndale's version.

In the same year that Coverdale's Bible came out, 1537, another version called Matthew's Bible was approved by the King, Henry VIII. It was prepared by John Rogers who used the name Thomas Matthew on the title page. He was a former associate of Tyndale and his version was also substantially Tyndale's work and also Coverdale's other OT books.

In 1538 Coverdale began a revision of his Bible which came to be known as The Great Bible. It was designed specifically for placing in each church in England for public reading. It appeared in 1539. A short time before this another revision of Matthew's Bible was published by Richard Taverner and called Taverner's Bible. But it was outstripped by the Great Bible (which got its name from its great size) which was not displaced in popularity until the Geneva Bible which appeared in 1560.

The Geneva Bible was a thorough revision of the Great Bible by a group of worthy scholars working in the great Reformation center of learning, Geneva, Switzerland. The Geneva Bible received immediate acceptance and popularity and became the household Bible of all English-speaking Protestants. Another revi-sion of the Great Bible by a team of bishops appeared after seven years labor in 1568 and was called the Bishop's Bible. Although it was better than any earlier version, it was not as good as the Geneva Bible.

In 1604 King James I issued a decree that another translation be made into English to replace the Geneva Bible which he despised. He disliked it not so much for its translation (he was himself a capable enough scholar to know it was the best made in English up to this time). What he really objected to were some of the notes in it (he insisted that the new translation be published without notes). He cited two in particular: in Exodus 1:17 a note suggested that the Hebrew midwives were right in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders and in II Chronicles where a note said that King Asa's mother should have been put to death instead of put off the throne for her idolatry. James at this time feared sedition and rebellion. Forty-seven top Bible scholars in England were selected for the work. The Bishop's Bible (instead of the Geneva) was to be the basis for the new version. In other words, the KJV was to be a revision of the earlier version. Although it is still called the Authorized Version, it was never officially adopted by the Anglican church as the version for use. "Appointed to be read in the churches" on the title page merely reflects the fact that it replaced the Bishop's Bible which had obtained official recognition for church use before it. KJV Bibles today always contain the short "Dedication to King James I" for some strange reason but never the original preface, "The Translators to the Reader" which is much more enlightening though much longer. Many misconceptions today about the KJV and attitudes of those who staunchly defend its exclusive use and shrill objections to revisions and new translations might not exist if this preface were regularly included in KJV Bibles as it should be. (Source for above: Bruce, English Bible, op.cit., pp.26-106).

Although it is much too long to quote in full, here is an abbreviation of the preface:

"Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks....For was there ever anything projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying, or opposition?... [T]he learned know that certain worthy men have been brought to untimely death for none other fault, but for seeking to reduce their Countrymen to good order and discipline: and that in some [Countries] it was made a capital crime, once to motion the making of a new Law for the abrogating of an old, though the same were most pernicious....The first Roman Emperor did never do a more pleasing deed to the learned, nor more profitable to posterity, for conserving the record of times in true suppuration [calculation]; than when he corrected the Calendar, and ordered the year according to the course of the Sun: and yet this was imputed to him for novelty, and arrogance, and procured to him great obloquy [verbal abuse]....To be short, the most learned Emperor of former times [Justinian], (at least, the greatest politician) what thanks had he for cutting off the superfluities of the laws, and digesting them into some order and method?...[W]hosoever attempteth anything for the public (especially if it pertain to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himself upon a stage to be gloated upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue. For he that medleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold [a piece of land held for life and passed on as an inheritance]; and though they find no contentment in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering....The Scriptures we are commanded to search. John 5:39; Isa. 8:20. They are commended that searched and studied them. Acts 17:11and 8:28,29. They are reproved that were unskillful in them, or slow to believe them. Matt. 22:29; Luke 24:25. They can make us wise unto salvation. II Timothy 3:15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us....Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures, (for unto them was the direction) it was said unto St. Augustine by a supernatural voice....Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night. But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that

which is kept close[d] in an unknown tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me [I Cor.14:11]....Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn a deaf ear unto them....Therefore as one compaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent [urgent need], it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Trans-lation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that

breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar [common] tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed [Isa. 29:11]....[F]or one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. But when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the Gentiles by written preaching, as St. John the Baptist did among the Jews by vocal....Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take know-ledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to con-

tain the Scriptures....It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded....Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known....Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa.31:3]: so it is evident, (and St. Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through over-sight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it....There were also within a few hundred years after Christ, translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countries of the West, yea of the South, Fast and North, spoke or understood Latin, being made Provinces to the Romans....Now though the Church were thus furnished with Greek and Latin Translations, even before the faith of Christ was generally embraced in the Empire...yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin,...but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided Translations into the vulgar for the Countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue....

"So much are [the Roman Catholics] afraid of the light of the Scripture...that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men....Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills....Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that both the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plaindealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard [yardstick?] brought in place, but he that useth deceit....

"Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals [careful and thorough readings] of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime?...We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had the Oracles of God delivered unto us....Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but wind in it?...Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded [thrust forward] to the people?...[W]e are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance....How many books of profane learning have been gone over again and again, by the same translators, by others? Of one and the same book of Aristotle's Ethics, there are extant not so few as six or seven several translations....And this is the word of God, which we translate. What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord? [Jer.23:28]....[I]f a toy of glass be of that reckoning with us, how ought we to value the true pearl?...For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place....[W]e do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere....A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all [James 3:2]) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [commonly accepted], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it....The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express....The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity [clarity], gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as St. Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appelation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics (forsooth [no doubt]) were the Authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong)....St. Augustine was of another mind: for the lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius a Donatist [4th C. separatist], for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended [Augustine was their primary opponent]....To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined them together with the Hebrew Original, and the Translation of the Seventy...and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all....

"Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil [quibble] and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?...But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with....[But they have done the same with their Vulgate.]...Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one....but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen....as could say modestly with St. Jerome...Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part, and in the Latin we have been exercised almost from our very cradle....And in what sort did these assemble?...They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord....In this confidence, and with this devotion did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New....Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days....[N]either, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps.... None of these things: the work hath not been huddled up in 72 days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy two days and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity....[N]either did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as are needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point....[It] hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation...but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with St. Augustine....it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places....For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded....They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If [the Roman Catholics] were sure that their high Priest [the Pope] had all laws shut up in his breast, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace. Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word: as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity han wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the Primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one of newfangled-ness called [one Greek word meaning a bed by another Greek word], though the difference be little or none....

"Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Praepuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation [the Rheims NT, 1582; the Douay OT, 1609] is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar....

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are to do thy will, 0 God. The Lord work a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen."

This preface to the KJV of 1611 was written by Myles Smith who spoke for all the translators. At so many points, which we will not point out here, it stands in total contrast to the attitude of those who insist upon the King James alone. Given the attitude of the trans-lators toward their work as expressed in this preface, how do you think they would react toward those who vigorously oppose revisions or new translations today?

The KJV then was once considered the "new translation" that "changed the Bible" and was cursed for it just as modern translations are. This is what the writer of the preface knows will happen. It was at first and for a long time sharply attacked, finally gaining acceptance over an 80-year period. The Pilgrims who came to this country forbid it and continued to use the Geneva Bible. Attempts were made in 1881 (Revised Version, English), 1901 (American Revision called the American Standard Version), and 1952 (Revised Standard Version) to revise the KJV but these, for many different reasons, partly do to the fault of both translators and readers, none of these succeeded in replacing the dominant place of the KJV. This in itself is a testimony to how well and how thoroughly the KJV translators accomplished their goal. The present century has seen the appearance of a host of modern translations into English, some of the more notable in recent times being the New American Standard Version (a revision of the ASV of 1901), The New English Bible, the Living Bible, the Good News Bible, the Amplified Bible, the New International Version, the New RSV, etc. Of these the NIV and the Living Bible are by far the most popular.

As we have said, the invention of the printing press, the Renaissance, and the Reformation brought a renewed interest in translating the Bible into the languages of the people and many version were made during this time. But a real explosion in Bible translating came about with the rise of the modern missions movement around 1800. William Carey is usually seen as the father of modern missions. His influence brought about the first Baptist missionary society in England in 1792. Carey went to India where he and others worked on translating the NT into Bengali and other languages. In all, Carey either alone or working with others is said to be responsible for the translation in whole or in part of the Scriptures into 26 different languages. The British and Foreign Bible Society (of which the American Bible Society is now a part) was founded in 1804. Since this period of time, the church has considered once again that world evangelization and the fulfilling of the Great Commission is inseparable with providing a translation of the Scriptures into the languages of the world.

The following statistics will show the extent of the progress that has been made toward this goal. First, here is a chart showing the number of first-time translations made into new languages from the 3rd C. B.C. (the Septuagint) to 1980:

Century	Languages Added	Decade	Languages Added	Cumulative Totals
B.C. 300	1			1
200	0			1
100	0			1
-0-	1			2
A.D. 100	3			5
200	1			6
300	4			10
400	2			12
500	0			12
600	2			14
700	1			15
800	2			17
900	0			17
1000	2			19
1100	3			22
1200	4			26
1300	6			32
1400	3			35
1500	15			50
1600	11			61
1700	13			74
1800	446	1800	7	81
		1810	26	107
		1820	42	149
		1830	26	175
		1840	29	204
		1850	51	255
		1860	71	326
		1870	38	364
		1880	59	423
		1890	97	520
1900	1,390	1900	100	620
		1910	102	722
		1920	97	819
		1930	146	965
		1940	80	1,045
		1950	142	1,187
		1960	258	1,445
		1970	290	1,735
		1980	175	1,910

Some qualifications are in order for the figures above. First, the Bible may have been translated into some languages in the early centuries that we know nothing about. Second, some of the translations made are of only one book or the NT, not the whole Bible. Third, the number of languages includes dialects, not just totally different languages as we usually think of them. Fourth, some of the languages are extinct. Here is another table showing how much of the Bible has been translated into languages still in use and how this stacks up to the number of languages in the world:

	Portions	Testaments	Bibles	Tables
Scriptures in living languages	924	582	262	1,768
Percent	52.26	32.92	14.82	100.00
Estimated languages in the world				6,170
Percent with Scripture	14.98	9.43	4.25	28.65
No. probably needing Scriptures				1,047
Percent probably needing Scriptures				16.97
Additional no. possibly needing time				2,494
% possibly needing them				40.00

The ones not needing Scriptures represent people who have a translation in another language they speak, etc.

"The languages in which translations are available, however, are spoken by an estimated ninety percent of the world's population. That fact is impressive, but so also is the fact that the other ten percent speaks an estimated four thousand additional languages, and the ninety percent includes many multilingual people for whom a translation in some other language might be better than the one they have....Translations for the ninety percent of the world's population in whose lan-guages some translation has already been published are not all finished either. Even in those languages for which full Bibles have been completed, revision or new translation is often in process or needed."

Translating the Bible into other languages is a complex and difficult task that calls for great study and skill, not only in the Bible languages, Hebrew and Greek, but the native language as well. Often there is no corresponding word for one in another language; sometimes there is no corresponding form or part of speech. Translation of the Bible languages into another cannot simply be done word-for-word for many reasons, but one is that such a literal translation would not make sense. Some changes or adjustments have to be made so that the translation is idiomatic, that is, conforms to the normal way of saying things in that language. If the translation is overly literal, it will be unidiomatic, that is, awkward or even unintelligible in the new language. Thus the whole purpose for translating the Scriptures into another's common language-so he can understand it-is lost. (Source for the above section: Translation As Mission, William A. Smalley; Mercer U. Press: Macon,GA; 1991, pp.26-37)

"We are familiar with the kinds of mistakes normative speakers of a language make. If analyzed, these errors almost always reflect the lexical and grammatical forms of the person's mother-tongue. He has translated literally the form from his own language (the source language) and, therefore, his speech in the receptor language is unnatural. For example, a brochure used in an advertisement for tourists in Belem, Brazil, says, "We glad to you an unforgettable trip by fantastic Marajo Island," meaning "We offer you an unforgettable trip to fantastic Marajo Island." In another place the brochure says, "Beyond all those things, enjoy of delicious, that your proper mind can create. Marajo is inspiration," meaning "And above all, enjoy the delights which your mind will create. Marajo will inspire you." A look at the Portuguese on the other side of the brochure shows that the unnatural English was the result of following the form of the Portuguese source language in making the English receptor language translation. To do effective translation one must discover the meaning of the source language and use receptor language forms which express this meaning in a natural way." (Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-language Equiva-lence, Mildred L. Larson; U. Press of America: Lanham,MD; 1984, pp.5,6)

The problems and mistakes modern missionary translators run into in making a translation of the Scriptures into native languages can be quite amusing. In many more primitive languages, the same word may have as many as five different meanings, depending on the pitch or tone of the voice. "In the Trique language, also spoken in Mexico, there are apparently five levels of tones, and it is even easier to become confused. For example, a failure to put just the right waver in the voice in the middle of the word xanan changes "dove" to "skunk." Before one realizes it, he may be declaring that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a skunk, and not a dove." One missionary translated some hymns into a native language. Later she found out through a young man who could also speak the missionary's language that she had made one song say that Jesus died to save "fat people" instead of "sinners."

"There is an impression among some people that Bible translating is really quite an easy task, but these persons have not reckoned with the troublesome thorns and thistles which beset the translator at every turn. They presume that all one has to do is to ask natives for the right words and then proceed to write them down, but one can never take anything for granted. One missionary assumed that his helpers were giving him the right words, but in the Beatitudes they failed to understand the meaning of the Spanish bienaventurados 'blessed,' 'fortunate,' or 'Iucky'; and as a result the translation into one of the Indian languages of Latin America read literally, 'Lucky in gambling are the poor in spirit. . . ; lucky in gambling are those who mourn...', etc....Literal translations sometimes turn out ridiculous. In one language of Latin America the translator thought he was describing an image coming to life when he gave a literal rendering of 'gave breath to the image' (Rev.13:15), but what he actually said was, 'He made the image stink.' In another instance the natives were amazed at the recorded patience of the Lord, for according to the 26th chapter of Matthew in their New Testaments a repentant woman 'broke a stone jar of ointment' on Jesus' head. A strange way indeed to ex-press gratitude! In still another case the literal translation of 'birthday' (Mk.6:21) meant that Herod threw a drinking party for the leading men of the land on the very day he was born-an incredible stunt, so the people thought, but their mythical heroes were credited with equally amazing exploits at an early age and so they were ready to believe the mistranslation-but only as a fable....Some literal translations mean practically nothing. They are incongruous words--nothing more. A translation for the 'Holy Spirit' used for some time in one Sudanic language meant only 'clean breath.'...To understand a strange culture one must enter as much as possible into the very life and viewpoint of the native people. Otherwise, a person will not realize how ridiculous it is to talk to Indians of southern Mexico about scribes who 'devour widows' houses' (Mk.12:40). Their houses are often made with cornstalk walls and grass roofs, and farm animals do eat them when fodder gets scarce, so that people guard against hungry cows breaking in to eat down a house. 'Devouring widows' houses' is no bold metaphor in some places, but a real danger. Hence the native reader wonders, 'What were these "scribes" anyway? Was this just a name for starved, ravenous cattle?' In such cases one must translate 'destroy widows' houses.'...One cannot say to the Zanaki people along the winding shores of sprawling Lake Victoria, 'Behold I stand at the door and knock' (Rev.3:20). This would mean that Christ was declaring Himself to be a thief, for in Zanaki land thieves generally make it a practice to knock on the door of a hut which they hope to burglarize; and if they hear any movement or noise inside, they dash off into the dark. An honest man will come to a house and call the name of the person inside, and in this way identify himself by his voice. Accordingly, in the Zanaki translation it is necessary to say, 'Behold, I stand at the door and call.' This wording may be slightly strange to us, but the meaning is the same....One translator in West Africa finally extracted a word which he thought meant 'to save.' For years he used it, only to discover at last that it meant merely keeping ragged clothes together-scarcely a fitting term to describe the redemptive salvation described in the Bible. To make matters worse, he used a word for 'grace' which was used in casting curses upon people. He had explained 'grace' as great spiritual power descending upon people, but in many cultures supernatural power is more often fearful and harmful, rather than good. The word which the missionary persisted in using was so taboo that people would utter the word only when others were not listening, for they did not want to be accused of witchcraft. Rather than proclaiming the grace of God, the missionary was extoling the power of black magic and the efficacy of God's curse." (Source for the section above: God's Word in Man's Language, Eugene A. Nida; Harper:NY; 1952, pp.31,43-47)

An extremely literal word-for-word translation of Amos 2:1-3 would read: "this he-says Yahweh for three sins-of Moab even-for four not I-will-turn-back-him because to-burn-him bones-of king-of Edam to-the-lime so-I-will-send fire upon-Moab that-she-will-consume fortress-of the-Kerioth and-he-will-go-down in-tumult Moab amid-war-cry with-blast-of trumpet and 1-will-destroy one-ruling from-midst-of-her and-all-of officials-of-her I-will-kill with-him he-says Yahweh."

Even this "fudges" the Hebrew a little bit, but it is still quite unintelligible to us because you cannot simply take the forms and idiom of one language and "plug" the words of another language into it. This is not trans-lation, because the meaning is lost.

And there is certainly no need to use Elizabethan English in reading the Bible. This was the language of those of the seventeenth century, but certainly not ours. The preface to the KJV version shows us that it was what they thought to be at the time clear and forceful English.

"Putting eternal truths into the speech of everyday life reflects exactly the style of the Greek New Testament. The New Testament books were not written in the high-flown Asian style of the schoolmasters of the first and second centuries A.D. ; they were couched in the words of the common people, who were seeking the truth about the living, risen Christ. For those who sought life, the dead forms of outmoded grammatical styles were useless. So today, the missionary translator carries on that same tradition, giving people the Word of God in their own living language, though the idioms may seem strange to us. For example, the Uduks along the Ethiopian border speak of 'worry' and 'being troubled' as 'shivering in one's liver.' John 14:1 does not sound like English: 'Do not shiver in your livers; you believe in God, believe also in me.' But the Scriptures in Uduk are not being translated for us, but for Uduks who must understand the meaning of the gospel in terms of their lives, not ours." (Nida, op.cit., pp.23,24)

Realizing the difficulty of translating the Bible into other languages, even the impossibility of doing so perfectly, with absolutely no loss or distortion of meaning, can we truthfully say that any translation is really the Word of God? Yes, we can, just as the KJV translators said in their preface-"it's still the King's speech though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the same grace." The word for Scripture in the Greek NT is qraphe. Every graphe is inspired of God (II Tim.3:16). And that a translation of Scripture (even in places a poor one) is still the Word of God can be proved by the fact that in many places in the NT where the authors quote from the OT Septuagint translation, they still refer to it as graphe: Matthew 21:42 (Psalm 117:22,23; 118:22,23, English); John 13:18 (Psalm 40:9; 41:9,English); Romans 4:3 (Genesis 15:6); Romans 9:17 (Exodus 9:16); Romans 11:3,4 (I Kings 19:10,14,18); Galatians 3:8 (Genesis 12:3); Galatians 4:30 (Genesis 21:10); 1 Timothy 5:18 (Deuteronomy 25:4); James 2:8 (Leviticus 19:18); James 4:6 (Proverbs 3.34); I Peter 2:6 (Isaiah 28:16). In each case the author quotes the Septuagint, not the Hebrew, but nevertheless calls it "Scripture."

On the other hand, just as with the transmission of Scripture by handwritten copies, we must restrict our doctrine of inspiration, in the strictest sense, only to the autographs, not translations. There are errors in all the MSS and their are errors in all translations, but there are no errors in the autographs of Scripture. (Source for the above section: Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God?, Edward W. Goodrick; Multnomah: Portland,OR; 1988, p.74)

We conclude this section on translation with a quote from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, October 26-28, Chicago:

"Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired....Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of the Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader 'wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus' (II Tim.3:15)."

Bruce, F.F. The Books and the Parchments. Pickering & Inglis, Ltd.: London; 1953, 141-155,181-208.

---The English Bible. Oxford U. Press: NY; 1961, pp.8,13-16,26-106.

Carmack, Melvin M. John Wyclif and the English Bible. American Tract Society: NY; 1938, pp.22,38,39,50.

Comfort, Philip W. The Complete Guide to Bible Versions. Tyndale House: Wheaton,IL; 1991, pp.38,39.

Goodrick, Edward W. Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God? Multnomah: Portland,OR; 1988, p.74.

Larson, Mildred L. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-language Equivalence. U. Press of America: Lanham,MD; 1984, pp.5,6.

Nida, Eugene. God's Word in Man's Language. Harper:NY; 1952, pp.23,24,31,43-47.

Smalley, William A. Translation As Mission. Mercer U. Press: Macon,GA; 1991, pp.26-37.

Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center

---

Home

Back to Bibliology `

email

Sign Guestbook View Guestbook

Background from Greenfield Graphics.