# Funding a translation



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

KJV Only Debate Blog » KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 3

In this interview, Dr. Robinson states that the only thing holding back an english translation of the Majority Text is funding.

This brings me to ask two things....

1) How much is actually needed to bring about a translation of the Bible?

2) What prevents somebody who really understands Greek from translating the text on his own or in cooperation with some friends? 

It would seem to me that if one was convinced of the Majority Text, they would desire to have a translation of this text available for the lay-person.


----------



## BibleCyst (Feb 23, 2011)

We have at least two Majority Text English Translations which are - as you said - one man projects in cooperation with friends. To be specific, they are the World English Bible (WEB) and the English Majority Text Version (EMTV). There are problems with releasing a translation like this. For one, it's difficult to find them printed. Also, like it or not (and believe me, I do NOT like this), a translation needs a major backing - a publishing company or non-profit - in order to get into the hands of the lay-person. Don't get me wrong, though, I would LOVE another MT translation regardless of how it is published.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Feb 23, 2011)

By translation, are you referring to a widespread translation (such as the NIV, KJV, etc.), or a translation of scripture that someone translates himself or herself and uses for their own study?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

I am thinking widespread.

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------




BibleCyst said:


> Also, like it or not (and believe me, I do NOT like this), a translation needs a major backing



How much is considered a major backing?


----------



## BibleCyst (Feb 23, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> How much is considered a major backing?



It certainly wouldn't need somebody as big as Zondervan (I hope not! haha). In my opinion, a good comparison to what it would need is Crossway - big enough where people will know it's out, small enough where it's not an evil empire.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

Wouldn't a Majority Text translation be a nightmare for a publishing company? I am foreseeing all sorts of "scholars" coming out and ripping the translation because it does not follow the CT. 

Could a denomination publish a translation? I would think that a denomination or other non-prof would be in the business to break even whereas a Zondervan or something is in the business of making a profit. Thus, more likely to take on something that is destined not to be the top seller.


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 23, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Wouldn't a Majority Text translation be a nightmare for a publishing company? I am foreseeing all sorts of "scholars" coming out and ripping the translation because it does not follow the CT.



I think that you are exactly right if the translation had enough publicity behind it. I can imagine all the textual critics gnashing their teeth that someone dare do such and thing. The History Channel would then have another reason to put Barth Ehrman in prime time. 
It saddens me because I too would like to see this type of translation. 



Chaplainintraining said:


> Could a denomination publish a translation? I would think that a denomination or other non-prof would be in the business to break even whereas a Zondervan or something is in the business of making a profit. Thus, more likely to take on something that is destined not to be the top seller.



I'm not sure if most denominations who would favor such a product would be in the financial position to undertake all the costs required to complete the task. I am thinking not only of funding the translation but also publishing and advertising.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

Any idea what type of funds we would be looking at? Half a mil? a mil? More?


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 23, 2011)

According to this source the NKJV cost 3.5 million dollars to produce - and that was almost two decades ago!


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 23, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Any idea what type of funds we would be looking at? Half a mil? a mil? More?



It depends on who you get and how you advertise and how you publish. 
I'm thinking that by the end of the day a 3 million or more would have been spent easily just to get the first edition out. I'm including the costs of printing, advertising, paying translators salaries as well as accommodations and other such things. It just costs so much to run a printing of book. The Bible in particular can be expensive just to print. We tend to favor premium bindings and paper. Just a modest advertising campaign for a new translation I would estimate (based on the fact that I am in media and deal with this stuff everyday) would run near $250,000 _initially_. This is even more evident today when you consider that they would most likely want to be visible in as many mediums as possible.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

3 million?


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 23, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> 3 million?



I think we could cuts costs if we just made a translation the way they made the KJV. You alluded to something similar in having a church produce the translation. Today however the cost would still be relatively enormous I am afraid.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

What about simply doing a printing of the WEB? Are we still looking at millions?


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 23, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> What about simply doing a printing of the WEB? Are we still looking at millions?



Depends on how large of a print run. 
There is no reason for it to run that much. We have to factor in bindings and paper and such. You could do a reasonable print run at a modest price if looks were not a factor.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

Until then, the HCSB footnotes where the MT differs from the CT. That seems the best we have so far.


----------



## Edward (Feb 23, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> I'm including the costs of printing,



If the goal is getting it out to the public, why use paper and ink? Electronic distribution would remove most of those costs. That way, the bulk of your costs would be for the translation and verification process. Marketing could be largely viral.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

Problem is that most people are not going to use a digital copy in church.


----------



## Edward (Feb 23, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Problem is that most people are not going to use a digital copy in church.



Most people aren't going to be bringing a print copy of the new translation to church, either. You are aiming for a niche market much smaller than that targeted by the ESV. And it would lack the timing advantage that the ESV enjoyed. I wouldn't expect a print version to break even. A digital version might be viable if the goal was to produce a useful tool.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

Edward said:


> A digital version might be viable if the goal was to produce a useful tool.



We already have two of them, so it would seem that we are done for now with the MT.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2011)

It's hard for me to sympathize with funding another English translation when there are 200 untranslated languages within 100 kilometers of me here without the Word of God.

But, money is certainly NOT a problem in the American church if the priorities were right.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

The difference with this translation would be the Greek text it is translated from. It would be created because people felt the MT was closer to the autographs than the CT. It would not be created out of a desire to see another English translation just to have one.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2011)

What about Jay Green *Modern King James Version.*
Hasn't this already been done?

---------- Post added at 03:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 AM ----------

Link here: Amazon.com: Literal Translation of the Holy Bible-OE (9781878442468): Jay P. Green: Books


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 23, 2011)

Edward said:


> If the goal is getting it out to the public, why use paper and ink? Electronic distribution would remove most of those costs. That way, the bulk of your costs would be for the translation and verification process. Marketing could be largely viral.



I agree. I was just trying to answer with a more traditional publishing format in mind.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 23, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> What about Jay Green *Modern King James Version.*
> Hasn't this already been done?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 AM ----------
> ...


 
I think I read that the MKJV and the MT still differ at a couple thousand places.


----------



## Edward (Feb 23, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> We already have two of them,



If there are already 2, why translate it again? If you just want it in a different format, it'd be cheaper to license one of the existing versions than to start from scratch.


----------



## BibleCyst (Feb 24, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Wouldn't a Majority Text translation be a nightmare for a publishing company? I am foreseeing all sorts of "scholars" coming out and ripping the translation because it does not follow the CT.



I'm not so sure it would be a nightmare, Chaplain. The NKJV is still a top seller, and frankly, I've heard more criticisms of it from pro-TR people then I have from CT people. I'm sure there would be some backlash from CT people if a pure MT translation were to be released, but isn't that publicity? I mean, it would get people curious at least.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 24, 2011)

BibleCyst said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't a Majority Text translation be a nightmare for a publishing company? I am foreseeing all sorts of "scholars" coming out and ripping the translation because it does not follow the CT.
> ...



Good point.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 24, 2011)

What are MT and CT? Not just what do they stand for, but what exactly are they? Who likes the MT? Do no Bibles stem from the MT? Do all other Bible stem from CT? For instance, ESV and KJV don't stem from same place, do they? 
Thanks!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 24, 2011)

MT and CT stand for two different sets of Greek texts. The Critical Text (or CT) is earlier and dies out by the 9th century or so. The Majority Text (or MT) is later. The earliest we have of them is fifth century, but we also have 10x as many manuscripts of the MT than the CT.

All translations except for the KJV and its brothers stem from the CT. The idea is that older manuscripts are going to be better manuscripts. 

The KJV and its brothers stem from the Textus Receptus which is based in part on the MT, but differs from it at numerous spots.

Nothing of real doctrinal importance varies between the two texts, but confusion can be cleared up from one text or the other. 

A good example is Acts 18:26. The CT has Priscilla before Aquila which leads some people to think that Priscilla was more spiritually mature than her husband and took over the teaching of Apollos in the home. The MT on the other hand has the traditional role of listing the husband first. 

If someone wanted to use this verse as their "proof" that women can teach men, the MT removes that possibility (I would also add that other Scriptures remove the possibility as well, but the moving of word order removes this proof text).

Alot more goes into the discussion of CT vs. MT, but that is about all I know at this time.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 24, 2011)

Thanks! It's hard to believe people would base a theology on name order!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 24, 2011)

I heard it last week from a professor who has been teaching Acts for 30+ years. Unfortunately it is not something new.


----------

