 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Foundations
for Christianity:
201
Bible Translations and Manuscripts
Are Translations
Unreliable? (Part 1)
Are Translations Unreliable?
(Part 1)
Are Translations Unreliable?
(Part 2)
A Brief Examination of Manuscript
Variation Issues
Introduction
A few months or so before the writing of this article, I received
an email from an individual concerning the comparable reliability
of translations such as the King James Version and the more
modern New King James, NIV, and NASB versions. Near the end
of his email, the author asked to hear my thoughts on the
issues he had mentioned. When I wrote back, I told him that
I agreed with his comments concerning the relevant differences
between these translations. I also made one particular statement
that, "ultimately, I do not feel that the intended meaning
of God's Word is so fragile that essential clues are missing
if one word or another here and there is translated into a
slightly different meaning than the original." The author
of the email responded back concerning this particular comment
in my reply and said, "This is a very good point to help balance
the whole situation."
This article is about how we see God's Word. Is it fragile?
Is God's teaching so weak, unsure, and unclear that the original
meaning is lost if so much as one word is translated imperfectly?
Or is the teaching of God strong, clear, and difficult to
obscure or erase the meaning from? I prefer to think that
God's words are so perfect and so clear that it is difficult
to erase or pervert the obvious meaning and intent. In cases
where a word is translated less than ideally, the original
word can be checked in the underlying Hebrew or Greek text.
In this way, the meaning of God's word is robust and resilient,
mistranslations of a word are easy to remedy, and the meaning
is abundantly clear. Under this view, misinterpretations are
not a result of shortcomings in the clarity or durability
of the meaning of the text but instead result from inconsistent
or otherwise poor interpretive practices on the part of the
interpreter. The alternative is that God's meaning is fragile
and fleeting and a correct interpretation of the text is incredibly
difficult, unsure, and precarious. Subsequently, certainty
about the meaning is out of reach. Under this view, misinterpretations
are the result of a text that is difficult to decipher and
by its very nature prone to misinterpretation. The first view
places the blame for misinterpretation on the shoulders of
the interpreter. The second view places the blame for misinterpretation
on the text itself and the inherent difficult with identifying
the meaning.
Some months after that particular email, similar issues regarding
the general reliability of translations again became the topic
of conversation. For that reason, it seemed to be a good idea
to write an article to explore and establish a proper view
of these issues.
The Purpose of this Article
The purpose of this article is to address a very practical
and fundamental question. Does the text of the Bible become
unreliable as a basis for doctrine once the original statements
are restated using different words, such as occurs in the
process of translation? Or in other words, is the meaning
and intent of God's Word so obscure and precarious that it
becomes unusable and unreliable for understanding and living
correct doctrine once it is translated?
Additionally, how reliable are translations? And by what means
can we measure reliability so that we can build our understanding
by means of an accurate translation of the text? These are
the question that this article seeks to address.
First and foremost, we would like to reassert at this point
one of the items in our basic doctrine, found in our "Just
So You Know" section. Number 12 of our most basic doctrinal
statement contains the following opening declaration.
12. We believe the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments
were inspired by God, and free from all errors in their original
form (2 Tim. 3:16 & 2 Pet. 1:21).
Our point here is simply that the scriptures are only infallible
in their original languages. The reason for this is that translation
itself involves a degree of human subjectivity, which removes
from the translation the infallibility possessed by the original
authors in the original texts. The interpreter/translator
is not infallible as the original author was. However, despite
the fact that translations lack infallibility, we also quickly
state under item No. 12 that a translation can still remain
reliable for both doctrine and consequently daily living.
12. (continued) ...We believe in the preservation of
the text of Scripture through the providence of God for each
generation (Psalm 12:6,7 KJV/NKJV, Matt. 5:17,18, Matt. 24:35,
1 Pet. 1:23).
By these statements under item No. 12, we declare that translations
are useful and reliable for understanding both theology and
daily living. However, reliability occurs in degrees so that
one translation may be more reliable than another. The difference
in reliability between one translation and another can even
be dramatic. But most importantly, the degree of reliability
can be measured using concrete methods and criteria. Those
methods will be discussed in detail in later portions of this
article.
Finally, as a consequence of our belief that the scripture
is only infallible in its original language, even though translations
can be reliable, we believe it is necessary to ultimately
defer to the original language on questions of vocabulary
and grammar, etc. Translations do not surpass and do not equal
the original in this regard. They are fallible and their reliability
is strictly a matter of how accurately they preserve the meaning
of the original. As we move ahead, it will be important to
keep in mind this central question:
Is meaning automatically lost by the very act of translating
or attempting to articulate the same concept with alternate
words?
As we have already mentioned, some modern scholars articulate
just such a view in terms of the Bible. This is not simply
a question of infallibility. We ourselves wholeheartedly believe
that the scriptures are only infallible in their original
language. As such, all translations must yield to the authority
of the original language. But we entirely disagree with the
idea that scriptures are only reliable in their original
language. A text can be reliable without being infallible.
Specifically, a translation can be reliable if it is an accurate
preservation of the meaning of the infallible original. And
reliability is determined by the degree to which a translation
accurately reflects the original. This accuracy (and consequently
the reliability) can be measured. And some translations are
more reliable than others, even by large margins, but translations
are not by their nature automatically unreliable for doctrine
or practical application.
What Is At Stake?
Before we move on it is necessary to explain the consequences
at stake with this question. There are two possible scenarios.
1.) Translations from the original language by their
nature render the text unreliable for doctrine or practical
application and as such, in order to obtain a reliable understanding
of the scripture one must be fluent in the original languages
of Greek or Hebrew or accept the interpretation of someone
who is.
2.) Translations from the original language are reliable
in degrees based upon how accurately they reflect the original,
that accuracy can be measured, and as such it is not necessary
to be fluent in the original languages of Greek or Hebrew.
Concerning Scenario No. 1, if the meaning of scripture is
so precarious and fragile that it is lost in unreliability
once that meaning is conveyed with new words, then either
we all must learn to be fluent in Hebrew and Greek in order
to preserve the principle of sola scriptura and to understand
God's teachings in the Old and New Testaments ourselves or
those who are not fluent in Hebrew and Greek must have an
infallible interpreter to tell them what the Hebrew and Greek
means.
This interpreter should be classified as infallible because
their audience necessarily has to accept and rely upon their
interpretation of scripture. Since the audience cannot read
Hebrew or Greek, any interpretation they derive themselves
is by definition unreliable since they didn't get it from
the original language or from the fluent interpreter. It does
not matter whether or not the meaning they derive aligns or
disagrees with what the fluent interpreter proclaims. Thus,
any interpretation that the audience derives themselves provides
no basis for questioning or doubting the proclamation of the
interpreter who does read Hebrew or Greek and explains it's
meaning to them. In short, the only source that the audience
has for a reliable understanding of the scripture is the fluent
interpreter. Likewise, the fluent interpreter is the only
source that the audience has for knowing what to believe or
how to live. They cannot get such information from reading
the text themselves since they do not read the original languages.
Even if two fluent interpreters disagree with each other,
the audience is in no position to judge between the two since
judging between the two would require that the audience, who
cannot read Hebrew or Greek, is capable of reliably discerning
the interpretive errors of those who are fluent in Hebrew
or Greek. Weighing and judging the interpretive errors of
those who are fluent in Hebrew or Greek requires sufficient
understanding of the issues under debate, namely the original
Hebrew or Greek text including the rules of grammar and interpretation,
etc. so that the audience can know when an error has been
made, why it is an error, and what meaning is correct. If
the audience had that kind of understanding of the text, they
wouldn't need the fluent interpreter in the first place.
Moreover, in this scenario there is ultimately no real benefit
or purpose for the audience to read the scripture for themselves
since any understanding that they might obtain either will
already agree with what is proclaimed by the fluent interpreter
or will be entirely unreliable since they do not read Hebrew
or Greek. We use the phrase "entirely unreliable" instead
of "partially unreliable" for a reason. That reason is simple.
If the interpretation of someone who isn't fluent in Hebrew
or Greek can still be reliable to some extent, then reliability
is not restricted only to those who are fluent in the original
languages. Furthermore, if some measure of reliability is
possible when using translations of scripture instead of the
original languages, then reliability is not automatically
lost in translation. In this case, Scenario No. 1 dissolves
entirely and reverts automatically to Scenario No. 2.
Scenario No. 2.) Translations from the original language
are reliable in degrees based upon how accurately they reflect
the original, that accuracy can be measured, and as such it
is not necessary to be fluent in the original languages of
Greek or Hebrew.
Conversely, so long as translations can be reliable as long
as they accurately reflect the original and that accuracy
can be measured, then scripture itself remains the supreme
authority in the life of every believer because they do not
need an interpreter to act as an intervening authority - an
authority that rules over even the meaning of scripture itself.
It is these issues that are at stake when answering the central
questions examined in this article. Or to put it in historical
terms, to assert the need for an intervening authoritative
interpreter to preside over the very meaning of scripture
for layperson is to borrow the principles necessitating Roman
Catholic Papal authority and reject the Protestant Reformation's
affirmation of sola scriptura.
Word Meaning in the Koran
It should be noted that the Islamic view of the Koran is that
the meaning is so fragile that it ceases to be reliable the
moment that it is translated or rearticulated from the original
into alternate words.
"Qur'an - The Qur'an is held in high esteem as the
ultimate authority in all matters legal and religious and
is generally regarded as infallible in all respects. Its
Arabic language is thought to be unsurpassed in purity and
beauty and to represent the highest ideal of style. To imitate
the style of the Qur'an is a sacrilege. To imitate the
style of the Qur'an is a sacrilege." - Britannica.com
"Qur'an - The Qur'an itself is a miracle and
cannot be imitated by man. As a consequence of this, it
is regarded as unfitting to translate the Qur'an. In countries
in which other languages are spoken, the Qur'an is still recited
in Arabic. There exist Muslim translations of the Qur'an;
e.g., into Turkish, Urdu, and English (the latter during the
Ahmadiyah movement founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in
the Punjab region of India), but on principle these are
regarded as paraphrases, not as translations that can be used
for ritual purposes." - Britannica.com
"Qur'an - Being the verbatim Word of God, the text
of the Qur'an is valid for religious purposes only in its
original Arabic, cannot be modified, and is not translatable,
although the necessity for non-Arabic interpretations is recognized.
This has made the Qur'an the most read book in its original
language and preserved a classical form of Arabic as an Islamic
lingua franca and medium of learning." - The Columbia Encyclopedia,
Sixth Edition. 2001.
As the above quotes state, the Koran is only considered a
reliable "authority in all matters legal and religious" in
its original language. The text loses reliability as an authority
the moment it is translated. As such, translations are regarded
as nothing more than paraphrases that cannot be used in practice,
particularly ritual. The question is whether or not Christians
today should have this Islamic type of view when it comes
to the Bible or if the meaning of the Bible is clear and robust
enough to remain reliable (although not infallibly so) even
when translated.
If it turns out that such a view of the Bible is incompatible
with scripture and Judeo-Christian history, then we might
well regard this view as an influence from Islam. Even if
this view was not borrowed from the Islamic view and is merely
coincidentally similar to that view, we will need to discard
such a view of the Bible on the grounds that it is incompatible
with scripture itself and with Judeo-Christian history. In
this article, the evidence will demonstrate that the orthodox
view contained in scripture and held in scriptural times is
that 1) the text was only infallible in its original language
but that 2) translations can indeed be reliable for doctrinal
and practical living purposes.
Does Translation Automatically Remove Reliability?
When a government official from one country speaks to an official
from another country in which a different language is spoken,
each official will likely bring an interpreter. It is the
function of the interpreter to take the original words of
one official and to articulate the exact same concepts using
different words (from another language) without altering the
meaning. In legal, religious, and literary circles, there
are also interpreters. Their function is to take the words
of an original text or document and articulate them using
different words for the purposes of explaining or applying
the intended meaning. In both cases, whether different languages
or the same language is involved, such an individual is known
as an interpreter and the work performed is known as interpretation.
The absolute key in this concept is to understand that the
goal of interpretation is not to alter the meaning but instead
to preserve the meaning and create an understanding of that
intended meaning by articulating it using alternate words
from the original. Translation is merely a sub-category under
the larger category of interpretation. Specifically, translation
is a form of interpretation where the new articulation involves
a different language than the original. But whether translating
between different languages or simply interpreting within
the same language, the process is identical. The original
words are exchanged for alternate words with the goal of preserving,
rather than altering, the meaning contained in the original.
In short, interpretation is a process of understanding the
intended meaning of words and ultimately sentences. Any time
we take the original words and exchange them for others to
articulate the same idea we are translating and transferring
the meaning from the original words that conveyed it into
alternate words. It does not matter if this process involves
exchanging words in a particular language for other words
in that same language or words in a different language. Although
different processes might be involved for each, the essential
nature of the transaction is the same: meaning is preserved
while the words conveying the meaning are replaced.
Thus, it is the goal of interpretation and translation to
preserve meaning reliably. Either this concept is possible
or it is not. Those who reject that translations of the Bible
can be reliable for accurate understanding of doctrine and
practical application necessarily hold that meaning cannot
be reliably preserved when the original words are exchanged
for alternate words. Thus, those who reject that translations
of the Bible can be reliable for accurate understanding necessarily
hold that interpretation and translation are not possible.
They are effectively anti-translationists and anti-interpretationists
because they believe that meaning cannot be reliably preserved
when expressed in alternate words.
Consequently, there arises the interesting question of why
an interpreter that is fluent in Greek or Hebrew is needed
at all if the very process of trying to preserve meaning in
new words is inherently unreliable by its nature. If reliable
interpretation or translation is not possible, then what need
is there for an interpreter or a translator? Such persons
are nothing more than tricksters or con artists promising
to deliver something that they themselves assert cannot be
done - namely, an explanation of the text to the audience
in words other than the original.
But such a dismal view is not the view of the authors of this
site. The fact is that preserving the meaning while expressing
it in new words is an inseparable necessity of both understanding
and applying the text to everyday life. If we are to give
up the notion that meaning can be reliably preserved in new
words, we give up on understanding the meaning altogether.
For how can meaning be known at all if it cannot be described
in parallel terms?
Can you conceive of a dictionary in which the definition for
every word is that word itself? The definition of strong is
strong. The definition for hyper is hyper. The definition
for fluid is fluid. How would we understand the meaning of
anything if meaning cannot be accurately conveyed in alternate
words? As we will see in the paragraphs below, preserving
meaning with new words is not only possible, but understanding
meaning inherently requires our ability to convey and
perceive that meaning in alternate phrasing.
Let's look at this on a practical level where scripture is
concerned. We all translate the text of scripture into terms
that we understand and live. When we come into a situation
containing elements that the Bible speaks of, we don't quote
back an entire verse or passage verbatim. Instead, we remember
meaning and the application in simpler terms. In doing so,
we are translating from the original text into our own words
with the goal of accurately preserving the meaning.
To take a simple example, suppose we find ourselves in a situation
where there arises the opportunity or temptation to physically
strike someone. Even if a particular verse like "turn the
other cheek" comes to mind, for the purposes of guiding our
actions we translate the meaning of that verse into "do not
physically strike someone." The meaning is not so fragile
as to be lost or unusable simply because we take the words
of the text and translate their meaning to articulate the
same concept another way.
Of course, our articulation of the concept is not infallible
and is only as reliable as it is an accurate representation
of the meaning of the original. And there are rules by which
we can measure accuracy and preserve the intended meaning
of the original, which we will get into later on in this study.
For now, this simple example from the phrase "turn the other
cheek" illustrates that even within the same language, in
the process of understanding and applying scripture to our
lives, we all take the words of scripture and articulate them
in practical terms. If this were not the case then we would
not be able to understand that the phrase, "turn the other
cheek," is intended to instruct us concerning how to respond
to physical assault. Instead, when faced with the temptation
to engage in physical violence, we would simply turn our cheeks
and then punch our adversary because we perceive that "do
not engage in physical violence" cannot be a reliable preservation
of the meaning of "turn the other cheek" since meaning cannot
be reliably preserved in translation.
In fact, it may well be said that the only true way to understand
something is by the ability to take the original statement
and convey the same meaning back in one's own words without
changing the idea or meaning. Consider this. If a teacher
makes a statement to a student, and the student merely repeats
that statement back word for word to the teacher, is this
learning? Does the student really understand the meaning of
the concepts described by the teacher? How does the teacher
know whether the student understands his meaning or is just
imitating him without understanding?
This is very similar to our earlier illustration of a dictionary
that defines every word only with that word itself without
offering any alternate words to compare and express the meaning.
How can we possibly gain an understanding of what a word means
if we cannot perceive its meaning with alternate words. Likewise,
the only way the student can develop and even demonstrate
his understanding of the concept is to try to articulate that
concept in his own words while preserving the meaning.
If the teacher were to make a statement and then ask the student
if he understands, the student demonstrates his understanding
by articulating the concept back to the teacher in his own
words at which point the teacher evaluates whether the student's
articulation conveys the teacher's concept or falls short.
If it falls short, then the student has not yet grasped the
concept. If the student's articulation perfectly conveys the
meaning of the teacher's statement but using the student's
own words, then the teacher knows that the student has understood
him.
Furthermore, to return to our previous example, the teacher
knows the student has understood the meaning of "turn the
other cheek" when he sees the student decline the temptation
to get into a fistfight. By watching the student apply the
teaching in this way, the teacher knows that the student has
properly translated the intended meaning of "turn the other
cheek" into "do not engage in violence."
These examples are admittedly oversimplified and do not get
into the details of doctrines concerning Christian participation
in violence. That is the subject of other articles on this
website. However, the examples illustrate one of the key points
of this article. That point is simply this. It is far from
being the case that meaning is inherently lost by translation
to alternate words. Or to put it conversely, it is far from
being the case that meaning cannot be preserved through translation
or articulation into different words. On the contrary, grasping
the meaning of a statement or teaching not only inherently
involves the learner articulating the concepts accurately
in alternate terms while preserving the meaning, but without
this process, applying the Bible to guide our beliefs and
everyday actions would effectively be impossible.
Meaning Preserved in New Words: Scriptural Examples
As we stated in our previous segment, preserving meaning with
new words is not only possible, but understanding meaning
inherently requires our ability to convey and perceive
that meaning in alternate phrasing. The scripture itself affirms
and records this process at work. Let's take Jesus' words
in Matthew 16 for example.
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed
and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because
we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived,
he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among
yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not
yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the
five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither
the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets
ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I
spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware
of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then
understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven
of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the
Sadducees.
In this passage, Jesus gives his disciples instructions concerning
the Pharisees and Sadducees. He states to his disciples that
they "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and of the Sadducees." And how does Jesus know that they do
not understand his intended meaning? He knows this because
their re-articulation of the concept is not accurate. When
Jesus says, "beware the leaven of the Pharisees," the disciples
rearticulate this teaching as "we don't have enough bread
to eat." This is not what Jesus' meant, so he knows by their
re-articulation that they do not understand the meaning of
his words.
By contrast, what if Jesus had said, "do you understand what
I mean when I tell you to beware the leaven of the Pharisees?"
and his disciples had said, "Yes, we understand, you want
us to beware the leaven of the Pharisees." Because, in that
scenario, the disciples would be simply repeating Jesus' words
back to him word for word, there is no way to detect if they
understand the concept or if they are just repeating his words
without understanding his meaning.
Conversely, when we take a look at verse 12, we can see that
not only is misunderstanding demonstrated when the
original statement is rearticulated, but correct understanding
is also demonstrated when the original statement is rearticulated.
When Jesus makes his statement a second time, telling his
disciples to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees," the fact
that they understand him this time is evidenced by the fact
that they rearticulate his meaning accurately in their own
words as a reference to "the doctrine of the Pharisees." In
verse 12, instead of meaning being undermined inherently by
an attempt to rearticulate it, understanding meaning involves
accurately rearticulating that meaning in words that relate
to real life experience. The meaning of Jesus' original statement,
"beware the leaven of the Pharisees" was only properly understood
once the disciples had processed the concept and in processing
it rearticulated it accurately as an instruction to "beware
the doctrine of the Pharisees."
In this second example, we see that meaning is not automatically
undermined or lost by the mere process of rearticulating or
translating the original words to new words. Instead, re-articulation
is quite normal and it is by rearticulating accurately that
the disciples understanding of the correct meaning is demonstrated.
Furthermore, in this example we can see that it is possible
to accurately measure and distinguish between accurate
re-articulations of the intended meaning (as seen in verse
12) and inaccurate re-articulations of the intended
meaning (as seen in verse 7). Since the accuracy of a re-articulation
or translation can be measured and assessed, there is no need
to assert that a re-articulation or translation is unreliable
simply because it is a re-articulation from the original words.
Reliability is a matter of accuracy, not simply a question
of whether or not a statement has been rearticulated or translated
into alternate words.
And this process of birthing understanding by contemplation
and then re-articulation of the concept while preserving the
meaning is exemplified elsewhere scripture as well. Consider
Acts 8.
Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a
man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace
queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure,
and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning,
and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself
to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and
heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest
thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I,
except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip
that he would come up and sit with him.
There are several things worth noting from this account. First,
notice that the Ethiopian eunuch is reading the scripture
straight out of the book. He's not altering the words. He's
merely reciting the text word for word. He is not re-articulating
it nor could he even begin to do so because he does not understand
its meaning. So, the meaning is contained in the text in its
original form but the event of the eunuch understanding that
meaning has not taken place even though he has direct access
to and is reciting the text word for word. Thus, reciting
the text without rearticulating it into alternate words does
not help convey the meaning. The meaning is preserved in the
original text but it remains there until it is perceived and
framed accurately in alternate words.
Second, notice that Philip himself understands the difference
between simply repeating the original words and understanding
the meaning of those words. The eunuch also perceives that
understanding the meaning of the text is not displayed by
one's ability to merely repeat the original words unaltered
but by someone's ability to articulate the concept accurately
in alternate words. When Philip asks the eunuch, "do you understand
the words?" the eunuch replies, "How can I, except some man
should guide me?" In saying this, the eunuch indicates that
simply reciting the original words does not produce understanding
and that in order for understanding to be birthed, it is necessary
that someone must articulate the concept accurately in different
words just as Jesus' statement to "beware the leaven of the
Pharisees" had to be perceived and articulated as "beware
the doctrine of the Pharisees." Only once the meaning of the
original statement had been rearticulated in alternate terms
was the understanding birthed.
For this reason, the eunuch sought for Philip to instruct
him and take the original words of the text and explain the
concepts accurately with alternate words that would make the
meaning clear in terms that the eunuch understood. And in
verses 32-35, this is exactly what Philip does.
Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read
was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like
a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who
shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the
earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray
thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of
some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and
began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain
water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth
hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered
and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Notice verse 35, which recounts that Philip, "opened his mouth,
began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."
Philip is taking the words of the prophet and articulating
how those words describe events in Jesus' life. This process
inherently requires Philip taking the original words of the
text and articulating the concepts in them accurately in alternate
words for the eunuch. Not only does Philip's re-articulation
of the scripture in alternate words convince the eunuch that
Philip understands the original words accurately but this
re-articulation of the original words also produces an understanding
of the original text in the eunuch as well. The eunuch's own
understanding as well as his recognition that Philip understood
this passage is evidenced fully by the eunuch's acceptance
of the Gospel message and desire to be baptized in verses
36-37.
The end result is that the meaning preserved infallibly in
the original words is not so fragile as to be lost immediately
or automatically by the mere process of rearticulating those
same concepts in new words. In fact, the opposite is true.
This example along with our previous examples from scripture
demonstrate that it is outright Biblical fact that the meaning
of the original words is durable enough and clear enough that
not only can it be re-articulated reliably into alternate
wording, but the process of re-articulating the original words
accurately is an essential component of birthing understanding.
Now, it is possible that someone might suggest that Philip
is acting as the authoritative interpreter and that this passage
supports the suggested need for modern Christians to rely
on similar authoritative interpreters. Even if that were the
case, the need for an interpreter itself demonstrates that
meaning can be preserved reliably in translation. However,
later sections of this article will further demonstrate how
and why such an authoritative interpreter is not needed. While
Philip is explaining the meaning to the eunuch, there is nothing
in this text that demands or indicates that an authoritative
interpreter is required. At the most, the text simply demonstrates
that it is helpful to have someone who already understands
the concepts to act as a teacher. This article is not about
whether a teacher is necessary. This article is instead about
whether or not it is necessary to be fluent in Greek or Hebrew
to be a teacher or whether or not translations can reliably
preserve the meaning of scripture for teaching.
The point of this segment is simple. The intended meaning
of scripture is not so fragile that it is lost or becomes
unreliable the minute that it is articulated using alternate
words from the original. There is absolutely no reason to
reject or dismiss a translation or interpretation just because
it involves rearticulating the original text in alternate
words, either in the same language or a new language. While
a translated or rearticulated idea is not infallible, it can
be wholly reliable for daily living so long as it accurately
reflects the original meaning without alteration. And there
are concrete methods for measuring accuracy (and by extension
reliability) and thereby for preserving meaning accurately.
These methods for measuring and preserving accuracy will be
the subject of a later portion of this article. But for now,
since meaning can be accurately preserved when rearticulated,
there is no need to discount or reject a translation automatically.
So, when modern scholars assert that a particular translation
of a text cannot be relied upon merely on the grounds that
it is a translation, they are most certainly in error and
misleading their audience. Such suggestions or portrayals
of scripture by scholars must be rejected. They themselves
engage in a process affirming that meaning can be reliably
preserved in translation.
Up to this point, we have disproved the idea that translations
are inherently unreliable for doctrine simply on the conceptual
level. We have even used examples in scripture itself. However,
in our next few segments we will demonstrate the central fact
that translations cannot be automatically rejected as unreliable
by nature from both Church history and more importantly from
the Bible itself.
The History of the Church Affirms the Reliability of Translations
It is a contradiction of both historic and modern Church theology
for any modern scholar to suggest or imply that doctrine based
upon a translation of scripture is inherently unreliable because
of the nature of translating. Likewise, for a scholar to reject
a doctrine merely on the grounds that the interpreter of that
doctrine only had access to a translation or was not fluent
in the original languages is also contradictory of both historic
and modern Church theology.
Augustine is the essential example.
The significant influence and contribution that Augustine
has exhibited on the church of his day and in the centuries
since then up into modern times is undeniable.
"Eastern Orthodox - From the 4th to the 11th century,
Constantinople, the centre of Eastern Christianity, was also
the capital of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire, while
Rome, after the barbarian invasions, fell under the influence
of the Holy Roman Empire of the West, a political rival. In
the West theology remained under the influence of St. Augustine
of Hippo (354-430), while in the East doctrinal thought
was shaped by the Greek Fathers." - Britannica.com
"Origen - Before St. Augustine, Origen was the most
influential theologian in the church." - The Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001
"Augustine - bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430, one
of the Latin Fathers of the Church, one of the Doctors of
the Church, and perhaps the most significant Christian thinker
after St. Paul. Augustine's adaptation of classical thought
to Christian teaching created a theological system of great
power and lasting influence. His numerous written works,
the most important of which are Confessions and City
of God, shaped the practice of biblical exegesis and
helped lay the foundation for much of medieval and modern
Christian thought." -Britannica.com
"Augustine - His distinctive theological style shaped
Latin Christianity in a way surpassed only by scripture itself.
His work continues to hold contemporary relevance, in part
because of his membership in a religious group that was dominant
in the West in his time and remains so today." -Britannica.com
"Augustine, Saint - St. Augustine's influence on
Christianity is thought by many to be second only to that
of St. Paul, and theologians, both Roman Catholic and Protestant,
look upon him as one of the founders of Western theology."
- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
Augustine's influence on the church is said to surpass Origen,
to lay a foundation for medieval and modern Christian thought,
to remain dominant to this day among both Roman Catholics
and Protestants, and to be second only to Paul and the rest
of scripture. So, Augustine's contribution and value as a
theologian are widely accepted in the modern church. However,
what is also widely known is that although valued by many
as a teacher of Christian doctrine for nearly sixteen centuries,
Augustine was neither a master of nor fluent in Greek, the
original language of New Testament scripture.
"Augustine of Hippo Bishop and Theologian - He was
from the beginning a brilliant student, with an eager intellectual
curiousity, but he never mastered Greek -- he tells us
that his first Greek teacher was a brutal man who constantly
beat his students, and Augustine rebelled and refused to study.
By the time he realized that he really needed to know Greek,
it was too late; and although he acquired a smattering
of the language, he was never really at home in it." -
James E. Kiefer, Society of Archbishop Justus, Biographical
Sketches of Memorable Christians of the Past, www.justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/50.html
[NOTE: The website and quote above are the product
of the Society of Archbishop Justus, an online Anglican
organization. The authors of this website ("Studying the Word
of God") are not Anglican. The quote simply demonstrates outside
corroboration for the point under examination.]
"Augustine, Saint - The most widespread and longest-lasting
theological controversies of the 4th century focused on the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity-that is, the threeness of
God represented in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Augustine's
Africa had been left out of much of the fray, and most
of what was written on the subject was in Greek, a language
Augustine barely knew and had little access to." - Britannica.com
"Works of St. Augustine of Hippo - The most remarkable
of his Biblical works illustrate either a theory of exegesis
(one generally approved) which delights in finding mystical
or allegorical interpretations, or the style of preaching
which is founded on that view. His strictly exegetical work
is far from equalling in scientific value that of St. Jerome.
His knowledge of the Biblical languages was insufficient:
he read Greek with difficulty; as for Hebrew, all that
we can gather from the studies of Schanz and Rottmanner is
that he was familiar with Punic, a language allied to Hebrew.
Moreover, the two grand qualities of his genius -- ardent
feeling and prodigious subtlety -- carried him sway into interpretations
that were violent or more ingenious than solid." - the Catholic
Encyclopedia
"AUGUSTINE (AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS) - His acquaintance
with Greek literature was much more limited, and, indeed,
it has been doubted whether he could use, in the original,
either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures [1]1. Apparently,
he was in the habit of using translations of Plato
(Confess., viii 2), but, on the other hand, Greek words frequently
occur in his writings correctly rendered and discriminated;
aud he speaks in one of his epistles to Marcellinus (LIX.
tom. ii. 294) of referring to the Greek Psalter and finding,
in reference to certain difficulties, that it agreed with
the Vulgate. Clausen, who has particularly investigated
the point, sums up the evidence to the effect that Augustine
was "fairly instructed in Greek grammar, and a subtle distinguisher
of words," but that beyond this his knowledge was insufficient
for a thorough comprehension of Greek books, and especially
for those in the Hellenistic dialect." - Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Ninth Edition, Vol. III, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York,
1878, available online at "Christian Classics Ethereal Library,"
http://www.ccel.org/
The fact that Augustine was neither fluent in nor a master
of Greek means two things as far as this article is concerned.
First, Augustine's theological views were based primarily
on translations rather than the original language. Second,
reliance upon translations does not in any way on its own
automatically diminish the reliability of a theologian's doctrine,
nor does a lack of fluency in or mastery of the original language
of scripture. An interpreter or theologian, such as Augustine,
can be unable to read or master the original languages of
scripture and rely instead upon translations and still be
considered a significant, valuable, and reliable source of
Christian teaching.
The result is that historically the Church over nearly the
last 16 centuries, including the modern Church, have largely
endorsed and embraced doctrinal determinations and theology
that was based upon translations. In other words, both the
historic and modern Church have accepted translations of scripture
as a reliable basis for doctrine and theology and have accepted
doctrine and theology based upon translations of scripture
as reliable and valuable. This is evidenced most clearly in
the case of Augustine.
The modern Church must either reject the assertion that fluency
in Greek or Hebrew is necessary for doctrinal determinations
or they must reject all of the doctrinal determinations made
by Augustine. It is not possible to assert the necessity to
fluently read Greek and Hebrew in order to make doctrinal
determinations without rejecting the doctrinal determinations
of Augustine who was neither fluent in nor a master of Greek.
And it is also important to note that the prominent example
of Augustine demonstrates that any rejection of doctrine based
upon a lack of fluency in Greek or Hebrew is a novel invention
on the part of modern scholars that has not been historically
held by the Church.
This does not mean that the last 16 centuries of Church history
are necessarily a model or measuring stick for what is appropriate.
It simply means that persons who do value the last 16 years
of Church history or value Augustine in particular cannot
reject doctrinal determinations based upon translations of
scripture. Thus, any modern scholar that embraces doctrinal
determinations from Augustine while rejecting the reliability
of any doctrine based upon a translation of scripture is engaging
in self-contradiction.
The Bible Affirms The Reliability of Translations
In our previous segment, we looked at the prominent of example
of Augustine to demonstrate that it has been the consistent
standard throughout Church history for nearly the past 16
centuries that translations were reliable for making doctrinal
determinations. Likewise, the prominent of example of Augustine
also demonstrated that historically-speaking doctrinal determinations
based upon translations can be and are, in fact, considered
reliable even though the interpreter is not fluent or a master
of the original languages.
In this segment, we will show even more importantly that not
only is this the Church's own historic standard for the past
16 centuries, but the Bible itself affirms that translations
are reliable for making doctrinal arguments. The reasons for
this are simple fact.
First, figures of the New Testament and especially writers
of the New Testament very often used the Septuagint, a Greek
translation of the Old Testament, rather than the original
Hebrew texts when supporting the doctrine in the New Testament.
This affirms that the Bible itself inherently requires that
translations are reliable for making and supporting doctrinal
arguments.
"Septuagint - oldest extant Greek translation of the
Hebrew Bible made by Hellenistic Jews, possibly from Alexandria,
c.250 B.C...It was the version used by Hellenistic Jews
and the Greek-speaking Christians, including St. Paul;
it is still used in the Greek Church." - The Columbia Encyclopedia,
Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Septuagint - The language of much of the early
Christian church was Greek, and it was in the Septuagint text
that many early Christians located the prophecies they claimed
were fulfilled by Christ. Jews considered this a misuse of
Holy Scripture, and they stopped using the Septuagint.
Its subsequent history lies within the Christian church."
- Britannica.com
"Biblical literature, New Testament literature, The Synoptic
Gospels - Luke uses a good literary style of the Hellenistic
Age in terms of syntax. His language has a "biblical" ring
already in its own time because of his use of the Septuagint
style; he is a Greek familiar with the Septuagint, which was
written for Greeks; he seldom uses loanwords and repeatedly
improves Mark's wording. The hymns of chapters 1 and 2 (the
Magnificat, beginning "My soul magnifies the Lord"; the Benedictus,
beginning "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel"; the Nunc Dimittis,
beginning "Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace")
and the birth narratives of John the Baptist and Jesus either
came from some early oral tradition or were consciously modelled
on the basis of the language of the Septuagint." - Britannica.com
"Biblical literature, The New Testament canon - The
Old Testament in its Greek translation, the Septuagint (LXX),
was the Bible of the earliest Christians. The New Covenant,
or Testament, was viewed as the fulfillment of the Old Testament
promises of salvation that were continued for the new
Israel, the church, through the Holy Spirit, which had come
through Christ, upon the whole people of God. A possible factor
in the timing of this Jewish canon was a situation of crisis:
the fall of Jerusalem and reaction to the fact that the
Septuagint was used by Christians and to their advantage,
as in the translation of the Hebrew word 'alma ("young woman")
in chapter 7, verse 14, of Isaiah-"Behold, a young woman shall
conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"-into
the Greek term parthenos ("virgin").' - Britannica.com
"The Letter to the Hebrews - The language of Hebrews
is extremely polished, elegant, and cultured Greek, the best
in the New Testament. Linguistically and stylistically, it
shows only a slight influence of the Koine (common Greek).
The Attic style is broken only in passages in which Hebrews
quotes the Septuagint." Britannica.com
"Biblical literature, Texts and versions, The Septuagint
(LXX) - The Septuagint became the instrument whereby
the basic teachings of Judaism were mediated to the pagan
world and it became an indispensable factor in the spread
of Christianity. The adoption of the Septuagint as the Bible
of the Christians naturally engendered suspicion on the part
of Jews." - Britannica.com
"Quotations - Quotations from the Old Testament
in the New, which are very numerous, are not made according
to any uniform method... In general, the New Testament writers
quote from the Septuagint (q.v.) version of the Old Testament,
as it was then in common use among the Jews. But it is noticeable
that these quotations are not made in any uniform manner.
Sometimes, e.g., the quotation does not agree literally either
with the LXX. or the Hebrew text. This occurs in about one
hundred instances. Sometimes the LXX. is literally quoted
(in about ninety instances), and sometimes it is corrected
or altered in the quotations (in over eighty instances). Quotations
are sometimes made also directly from the Hebrew text
(Matthew 4:15,16; John 19:37; 1 Corinthians 15:54)... There
are in all two hundred and eighty-three direct quotations
from the Old Testament in the New, but not one clear and
certain case of quotation from the Apocrypha (q.v.)." - bible.crosswalk.com,
Easton's Bible Dictionary, Quotations
In fact, the use of the Septuagint by the Jewish founders
of Christianity and other writers of the New Testament became
an issue for which the unbelieving Jews criticized the early
Christian Jews and their teaching as erroneous. It was the
unbelieving Jews who first criticized Jewish and non-Jewish
Christians for relying upon a translation. It was the unbelieving
Jews who first criticized that using a translation was unreliable.
Since the entire New Testament is written in Greek and therefore
inherently involves translations of the Old Testament passages,
if modern Christians agree with that criticism now, we undermine
every argument in the New Testament that uses Old Testament
scripture to prove the doctrine of Jesus Christ is correct.
If we adopt such a criticism, we irrevocably lose the reliability
of the New Testament scripture itself since the New Testament
both employs and relies upon the use of translated Old Testament
passages to prove that Jesus Christ and his doctrine were
the fulfillment of Old Testament promises and prophecies.
Second, as mentioned in the quotes above, since the New Testament
was written in Greek, there are also occasions where the Septuagint
was not used but instead New Testament authors made up their
own direct translation of Hebrew in Old Testament passages
into Greek on the spot as they wrote the New Testament. Since
these translations of the Hebrew original into Greek are contained
in what Christians consider infallible New Testament scriptures,
this affirms that the Bible itself inherently requires that
the meaning of a passage can be reliably preserved in a translation.
Third, also as mentioned in the quotes above, at times the
writers of the New Testament would use the Septuagint but
correct translating errors in it on the spot according to
their knowledge of the original language. This tells us that
the Bible itself inherently requires that while translations
are reliable for doctrine, they are not infallible and it
is good, when necessary, to defer to and check with the underlying
original language to measure and establish accuracy in the
translation.
In these three absolute facts, the writers of this website
do not differ in any way from the writers of the New Testament.
We make doctrinal arguments using translations, just as they
did with the Septuagint. We operate on the presumption that
meaning can be reliably preserved through translation. And
we operate on the basis that although translations are reliable,
they are not infallible and so the original language should
be deferred to when necessary for the purposes of maintaining
accuracy.
The result is that the use of Old Testament passages translated
into Greek to support Christian doctrine throughout the infallible
New Testament demands that translations can be reliable for
supporting and establishing doctrine and cannot be discarded
as unreliable merely because they are translations. This unequivocally
ends the debate over whether or not translations by their
very nature are unreliable for doctrine. It is a clear, simple
scriptural fact that translations can be reliable for establishing
doctrine and, therefore, that intended meaning can be accurately
and reliably preserved through translation.
Having established that doctrine can be reliably established
from translations of scripture, we will now move on to discussing
the criteria that establish and measure accuracy in translation
and the interpretation of meaning. In this way, we will demystify
the process of interpretation, demonstrate that reliable translation
can be done without creating the need for an authoritative
interpreter who presides of the meaning of scripture, and
establish simple, uniform procedures for discovering and preserving
the intended meaning, whether that involves translation to
a new language or interpretation in the same language.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |