How We Got Our Bible – Part 11 [05/12/14] the Translation of the Bible– Part 2

PAUL M. WILLIAMS HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE – PART 11 [05/12/14] THE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE– PART 2 Introduction Last teaching we spent time looking at some of the very early versions of the Bible which were translated into Syriac, Coptic and Latin; some of these dated as early as the 2nd century A.D. We then turned our attention to the English Bible and traced its history from the 14th - 17th centuries, beginning with John Wycliffe and ending with the Authorised Bible of 1611 aka the King James Version (KJV). We saw how instrumental William Tyndale was to this whole process in the 15th century, with some 90% of his wording making its way into the 1611 KJV. This period of Bible translation is known as the early modern English translation period. Believe it or not, England was one of the last countries in Europe to have Bible printed in the vernacular of its people. Following the publication of the KJV, this masterpiece of a translation went unchallenged for nearly 300 years and was thoroughly loved by the English speaking world. The KJV underwent a number of revisions since its first publication (four in total) with the last being in 1769, which is the version that exists today. In the late 19th century however, there was felt amongst Church of England Bishops, a need to update the KJV to bring it line with current modern English, i.e. replacing thee and thou etc. In 1870 the Church of England commissioned a revision of the New Testament with the stated aims being to adapt the KJV to bring it up to date with the modern English language without changing the vocabulary and idiom (e.g. your pulling my leg) and to bring it up-to-date with modern Biblical scholarship. In 1881, the New Testament was officially published and four years later in 1885, the Old Testament (complete Bible) was published. This revision of the KJV was the only official and authorised revision of the KJV of 1611 and was called the Revised Version (RV). The Revised Version The Revised Version of the 1880’s marked a significant and major shift in the history of the English Bible. Up until this time, the Textus Receptus had been the foundational Greek text underpinning the translations of the New Testament from the time of Tyndale, including the AV of 1611. However, in the translation of the Revised Version, the more than 50 scholars used another Greek text to underpin the translation of the New Testament. Two notable Greek scholars by the names of Dr Brooke Foss Westcott and Dr Fenton John Anthony Hort were on the translation committee for the RV as was another notable scholar by the name of Dr Fredrick Henry Ambrose Scrivener. Scrivener insisted that the text underlying the translation of the KJV was the most accurate, but Westcott and Hort were not convinced. In 1881, Westcott and Hort compiled a critical text titled ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek’. Departing from the Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort instead compiled a Greek text of their own in which they used what they believed to be superior Greek manuscripts, namely Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B). Westcott and Hort were very influential on the RV translation committee and as a result their Greek critical text became the major influencer of the RV New Testament in 1881. As a result, far from being just a revision of the KJV, the RV made over 30 000 changes to the New Testament, 5000 of which were made on the basis of having available so-called better Greek texts, namely Westcott and Hort’s Greek text. Westcott and Hort set a new precedence in Bible translation in that since the publication of the RV, pretty much every English Bible published up until that time has used primarily, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as the Greek texts underlying the translation of the New Testament. The RV was considered by many scholars to be more accurate than the KJV but lacked the poetical beauty of the KJV. Let us investigate this further… Byzantine Manuscripts vs. Alexandrian Manuscripts Textus Receptus As mentioned; from the time of William Tyndale, the Textus Receptus had been the major Greek text underpinning every English Bible up until the RV in the late 19th century. The Textus Receptus aka the received text was compiled and published in 1516 by Dutch humanist and Roman Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus was a reformer within the Roman Catholic Church who openly criticised the many corruptions and superstitious nonsenses that he saw within the church. Erasmus was considered the top Greek scholar of his day and is credited with compiling and printing the first ever Greek New Testament called the Novum Instrumentum omne aka the Textus Receptus (TR). The TR underwent four revisions during Erasmus’ lifetime and it was the third edition in 1522 which formed the basis of Tyndale’s first English New Testament, translated from the Greek in 1525 along with all subsequent New Testaments up to the KJV of 1611, including Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, The Great Bible and The Bishop’s Bible. The second edition of the TR in 1519 formed the basis of Martin Luther’s German New Testament which in turn served as the inspiration for William Tyndale wanting to give the English a Bible. In fact Luther was brought to Christ reading the Book of Romans from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament!! The TR was compiled primarily from seven Greek miniscule manuscripts, the majority of which date to the 12th century A.D and represent the Byzantine text-type. The Byzantine and Alexandrian Manuscripts There are essentially two main categories of Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Byzantine text type and the Alexandrian text type. Of the 5800 Greek manuscripts the vast majority represent the Byzantine text type which are primarily minuscule manuscripts dating from the 9th through to the 16th century with a few manuscripts dating as early as the 5th century. The reason why they are called the Byzantine text-type is that these manuscripts were distributed widely throughout the Byzantine Empire from the 4th century onwards. It is believed that this text originated in Antioch (Syria), which was an early centre for Christianity which was then transported to Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The Eastern Orthodox Church traces its roots to the Byzantine Empire and today still places great emphasis on the Byzantine text-type. The Alexandrian text-type (also called the neutral text) was prevalent in the area of Alexandria, Egypt. The Many of the earliest papyri and uncial manuscripts are represented by the Alexandrian text-type with some miniscule manuscripts. The oldest manuscripts, some 70 are represented by the Alexandrian text-type, the two most notable being Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Generally the Byzantine type text is larger than the Alexandrian type text and there are differences between the two. These differences are called variants and exist between all Greek manuscripts with no two being identical. It is estimated that amongst the 5800+ New Testament Greek manuscripts, there are approximately between 200 and 400 thousand variants!! As has been pointed out in part 8 of this teaching (The Reliability of the Bible – Part 1), these variants by and large are non-meaningful and include minor errors like misspelt words and other insignificant issues relating to the Greek language, many of which cannot even be translated into English. Of the meaningful variants, textual critic, James White points out: “There are about fifteen hundred to two thousand viable and meaningful textual variants that must be examined carefully comprising maybe at most one percent of the text of the New Testament; of these historically, scholars have believed the vast majority of these are scribal errors of sight or hearing”. - James White opening statement in a debate with Bart Ehrman (2009), “Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?” When one compares the Byzantine manuscripts with that of the Alexandrian text, apart from the Alexandrian text being smaller in volume, there also exist variants between them which has led scholars translating the modern Bibles to omit certain verses from the New Testament (more on that shortly). The vast majority of modern scholars support and favour the Alexandrian type text over the Byzantine text. The argument made by modern scholars is simple; there may well be far fewer Alexandrian manuscripts available to study than Byzantine manuscripts but the quality of the Alexandrian manuscripts are far superior and better because of their age which dates far closer to the original. Proponents of the Byzantine type text point out that even between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, there are many variant readings. They also point out that though the Alexandrian text might be physically older the Byzantine text represents a line of transmission which is much more reliable because after the fall of Jerusalem, the centre of Christianity moved not to Alexandria but to Antioch out of which arose the Byzantine text. Furthermore, they point out that the fact there are so many Byzantine manuscripts is evidence of their wide-spread use by Christians through the centuries. When asked to explain why they date generally much later than Alexandrian manuscripts the answer they give is that due to their much usage, they naturally wore away. They would point out that the reason for example why Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have generally been so well preserved is because they were generally not well circulated. When discovered, Sinaiticus was discovered in a monastery and Vaticanus in the library of the Vatican!! In addressing the extra material found in the fuller text of the Byzantine manuscript tradition, those favouring the Alexandrian text which is the majority of scholars, would argue that scribes added extra words and phrases to the Biblical text which were not in the original.

Load more