# Textual Scholarship, Bible Translations, and The Church



## Casey (Mar 4, 2008)

The ESV thread brought to mind something I have been thinking about off and on for the past few months (and perhaps this has been discussed on the PB in the past?): Why don't churches (or groups of like-minded churches, like NAPARC) produce their own translation(s)? I have a problem with the text-critical work being done in cooperation with liberals and/or Roman Catholics, but also with publishing companies each vying to get their own respective translations to market. If a church or churches produce (and authorize?) a translation, at the very least it could not be accused of being "bottom line"-driven, and traces of unbelieving scholarship (textually and in the translation itself) could be carefully abandoned. I understand we already have a plethora of translations, but it would be nice to have the Bible back in the hands of the Church instead of in the hands (and control) of companies or Bible societies. Thoughts?


----------



## ADKing (Mar 4, 2008)

If there ever comes a time in God's providence when it would be beneficial to revise the AV (or produce a new translation, as you suggest) it seems to me that it is ideal and proper for the church to undertake this work. 

However, is now really such a good time for this? The Trinitarian Bible Society published an article in the last edition of the "Quarterly Record" explaining why, in their opinion, there is no need at present to do this and why it is not even an appropriate time to do so. "Why Not Produce a Modern Version of the English Bible for the 21st Century?" (pp.3-8). 

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr582.pdf


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 4, 2008)

> The ESV thread brought to mind something I have been thinking about off and on for the past few months (and perhaps this has been discussed on the PB in the past?): Why don't churches (or groups of like-minded churches, like NAPARC) produce their own translation(s)? I have a problem with the text-critical work being done in cooperation with liberals and/or Roman Catholics, but also with publishing companies each vying to get their own respective translations to market. If a church or churches produce (and authorize?) a translation, at the very least it could not be accused of being "bottom line"-driven, and traces of unbelieving scholarship (textually and in the translation itself) could be carefully abandoned. I understand we already have a plethora of translations, but it would be nice to have the Bible back in the hands of the Church instead of in the hands (and control) of companies or Bible societies. Thoughts?



The HCSB was done under SBC auspices and is published by the SBC affiliated publishing house. It is based on the CT.


----------



## Iconoclast (Mar 5, 2008)

Along this line of translations, Is Young's literal translation good?fair? poor?
I like how it puts the word order in a different way. I hear Pastor's say often ,the word order in the greek is;
Is Youngs literal translation fairly trustworthy in this?
If it is accurate,why is not more popular? I have never found a leather bound version of it.


----------



## KMK (Mar 5, 2008)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> The ESV thread brought to mind something I have been thinking about off and on for the past few months (and perhaps this has been discussed on the PB in the past?): Why don't churches (or groups of like-minded churches, like NAPARC) produce their own translation(s)? I have a problem with the text-critical work being done in cooperation with liberals and/or Roman Catholics, but also with publishing companies each vying to get their own respective translations to market. If a church or churches produce (and authorize?) a translation, at the very least it could not be accused of being "bottom line"-driven, and traces of unbelieving scholarship (textually and in the translation itself) could be carefully abandoned. I understand we already have a plethora of translations, but *it would be nice to have the Bible back in the hands of the Church instead of in the hands (and control) of companies or Bible societies.* Thoughts?



As for me, I do not agree that there is even a need for new translations. But if we did need a new English translation, I agree with you.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 5, 2008)

Casey,

You've opened a can of worms with this one.

When Warfield talked the Church into accepting the opinions of an independent academy of textual critics that were under the authority of nobody, and that these men had *authority* to declare what the word of God was unto the Church, we ceased being Presbyterians and returned to Anglicanism.

Scripture became subjective to a form/matter dialetic, holding the autographic text in dialetical tension against the apographic text, and Scripture became a secondary standard under a new Magisterium who would decree unto us it's ever changing autographic form. The Papacy was reborn and this independent body of textual critics now dictates, under the authority of nobody, what is and what is not the Word of God. One year certain texts of sacred writ is out and is no Word of God and a few years later it is back in and is the Word of God, all at the word of this unelected unordained authoritarian Papacy. The ecclesiastical leadership quickly rushed to recognize the authority of this unelected unordained authoritarian Papacy and began carry it's decree's on what was or what was not the Word of God unto their Churches.

This was done by departing from historic Reformed orthodoxy where infallibility was located in extant apographs unto a new and novel doctrine whereby infallibility demanded inerrancy, and hence ultimate authority could not be in errant extant apographs, but was located in a hypothetical (1) inerrant autograph. This hypothetical inerrant autographic text is not in the Church's possession and this created a radical discontinuity between the canon of Scripture and the text of Scripture, whereby the canonicity of Scripture became fluid attached to every changing text of Scripture in an infinite regress to the no longer existing autographic text.

In historic Reformed orthodoxy the canon of Scripture involves the final form of Biblical documents received and preserved by the Church - not the initial form, and never has been based upon this inversion and dialectical proposition. On the contrary, since the days of Thomas Aquinas it was Rome that was dialectical and held Papal infallibility in dialectical tension against Scripture.

The impact was immediate and this errant proposition derived from lower criticism directly caused higher criticism to ascend like a rocket through Princeton resulting in the forced reoganization of that school in terms of unbelieving academics. This, then, resulted in the rapid decline of orthodoxy in the PCUSA and was the major event signaling a downtrending and declining faith in the Reformed Church. 

This leaven quickly leavened the whole lump and all of American Christianity followed suit dedicating themselves to repeated attacks upon the established Bible and promoting the doctrine that ultimate authority rested in a hypothetical non-extant text. From there it spilled over legally into the Courts whereby the Roman Catholics attacked the King James Bible in Kansas City Public schools. This, then, served as precedent for the US Supreme Court to develop the "separation of Church and State" doctrine and began forcibly reorganizing all of American society in terms of a radically hostile and anti-Christian humanism in direct contradiction to our Declaration of Independence, whereby Scripture was recognized as the ultimate legal authority.

American Churches were now Anglican in terms of the doctrine of Authority the next step was to make them legally Anglican and subject them to a legal hierarchy. This was done by the resurrection of the Divine Right of Kings existing in English Common Law, which our legal order rests upon, in IRS Code 501 C 3. See this thread to understand this in more detail. This, then, legally imputs the old nature/grace dialetic (2) to the Church through the civil law whereby a radical discontinuity is mandated between what is spiritual and what is material and limits the jurisdiction of the Gospel substituting the Great Society for the Great Commission; as it is the duty of all federally funded non-profit corporations to promote the public policy of the United States. (See Bob Jones University v United States, 1984)

I could go on. It's really very simple - men do not create Authority, it is merely recognized, and since men cannot recognize the non-existant hypothetical autographic text of Scripture then Scripture has no real Authority. And since no critical text has any public standing at law, even if it is recognized by ecclesiastical leadership there is no way to overcome the legal discontinuity between law and gospel, State and Church, derived from withdrawing recognition of the established Bible. Authority has now been transfered to men lording over Christ's Church in various institutions.

Where it will end is anybody's guess - but I suspect as the sodomites and other groups continue their advancements and "hate crime" legislation makes continued gains under an ever growing liberal political regime that orthodox Christianity will be progressively criminalized.

Ultimately, the harvest reaped from despising the old archaic English Bible will result in old archaic persecution replacing it.


Footnotes:

(1) I use the term hypothetical because no one can see them, read them, or know what they say. We are only assured for certain what is not in the original autograph not what is in it, as the ever changing critical text plainly shows. 

(2) The old Roman idea derived from the transfer of Authority from Scripture to men in the form/matter dialetic in which it was now placed.


----------



## Casey (Mar 5, 2008)

Thank you for your responses so far. Please do not turn this thread into an apologia for the KJV, which is an interesting way to answer the question (so again, thank you for that perspective), but I believe misguided. It's my opinion that newer translations are an important asset to the church as she proclaims the gospel to the nations today, and I think this belief is presupposed in the first post -- a legitimate work to be done (textual scholarship & translations), only it seems to be outside the hands of the church. Further thoughts?


----------



## Casey (Mar 5, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> When Warfield talked the Church into accepting the opinions of an independent academy of textual critics that were under the authority of nobody, . . .


Do you have any references or links regarding this statement about Warfield?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Mar 5, 2008)

My own view is that there will always be the need for new translations because language shifts and changes; old words take on new meanings, various points of grammar shift and change.

A good introduction to the English Bible can be found in 4 talks by Daniel Wallace here.

In a nutshell English translations are generally divided into three camps, those that go for elegance (NEB), precision (NASB, ESV), and readability (NIV). There are gains and losses in each of these purposes. But people who are serious about studying the Bible, and who don't know Greek / Hebrew need have a several translations, at least one from each strain. The netbible is an interesting translation that tries all three in one. It is free, and is currently in a beta revision and looking for comments from people.

Every blessing.


----------



## beej6 (Mar 5, 2008)

While disagreeing with the KJV presupposition of the TBS in their article, I would heartily agree with its assessment of the Church today.
Would confessionalism help in this dilemma? I speak primarily of the first article of the WCF which establishes a doctrine of Scripture before embarking on a doctrine of God (the correct approach, In my humble opinion).


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 5, 2008)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > When Warfield talked the Church into accepting the opinions of an independent academy of textual critics that were under the authority of nobody, . . .
> ...



Theodore Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, 1997; 2nd Ed. 2000 247 pages

The books first essay is entitled: "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism."

Brief history of this issue and how Warfield fits into it:

1. Erasmus following Lorenzo Valla publishes his Latin Translation and Annotations with the common Greek text printed alongside. His purpose is to demonstrate that the Latin Vulgate is in error in both it's translation and text and these errors are the basis for many of the errant practices and abuses in the Church. 

Example: Mary is "full of grace" in Luke 1:28 in the Vulgate "gratia plena", he argues the proper translation is "gratiosa" - "favored," in his Annotations. In Matthew 1:25 the word "firstborn" is in the Byzantine text, it doesn't exist in the Vulgate. In Ephesians 5:32 marriage is referenced as "sacramentum," he says it is properly translated "mystery." These, of course, combine to attack the proof texts of the Immaculate Conception and co-mediatrix of Mary. In Matthew 4:17 Jesus begins his ministry in the Vulgate with "Do penance, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." This is the Roman proof text for penance, or external works instead of an inward faith, and Treasuries of Merit are developed wherein Indulgences arise. Erasmus translates it as "Repent." Martin Luther picks up on this and develops his 95 Thesis and the Reformation is born in Germany.

The Greek is provided to demonstrate his opinions are not novel introductions, but based upon the original Greek text. This, of course, is the Byzantine textual tradition - the Latin Vulgate is translated from the Western tradition (e.g., Vaticanus et. al.)

2. Tyndale, Luther, Calvin and Beza pick up this work of Erasmus and begin translating it into English, German and other languages.

3. Reformers are championing doctrine of Sola Scriptura against Papal Infallibility, change in the locus of Authority occurs for Protestants.

4. Council of Trent where Erasmus text is banned and Vulgate is established as canonical along with Apocrapha, first time Roman Church declares canonicity.

5. Reformed Confessions follow establishing Protestant Canon and deny Apocrapha, also establish the inspiration of the vowel points in Hebrew.

6. Tridentine counter-attack against Sola Scriptura asserts there are too many errors in the Greek text, it is impossible to know what Scripture is without Church tradition, there is no certainty for faith. Also asserts Hebrew vowel points are not inspired but late additions and is impossible to know precisely what they mean without Church tradition and Papal Infallibility. Brian Walton publishes Polyglot to demonstrate Tridentine counter-attack against Sola Scriptura.

7. Protestant scholasticism asserts Providential Preservation of Received Text and Reformed dogmatics are developed. Confessionalism becomes more refined as does development of Scripture in English

8. John Owen and Francis Turretin lead high orthodox defense against counter-reformation, but Rome has no critical weapons to contradict the academic scholarship of Erasmus and the Reformed followers.

9. Richard Simon develops textual criticism and departs for the first time from the sacred criticism for purpose of destroying Protestant doctrine and asserts church tradition.

10. Mills, Semler, Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wescott & Hort all follow and continue Simon's work. This is a completely different approach to the text of Scripture.

11. Deists and Unitarians utilize Mill's collection of 30,000 variants as an argument to replace revealed with natural religion. Semler develops synoptic Gospels hypothesis and denies authenticity of Gospels, inspiration of Scripture, and argues that Holy Scripture cannot be equated with God's Word, denies canonicity of text as binding and asserts, essentially, that individuals can determine their own canon. Griesbach follows in his footsteps as does Lachman &c.

12. Darwin, Marx and Freud are the darling stars of science, economics and sociology - the whole world has sparkles of humanistic hope before their eyes and the greatness of man with the scientific method at their disposal to find truth.

13. B.B. Warfield goes to Germany to study under critics and adopts their presuppositions.

14. Buckminster at Harvard persuades officials to publish Griesbach's text because it is a "most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration." Is adopted as textbook at Harvard and significantly advanced critical camp in the United States.

15. Warfield intends to defend Scripture from within the scientific camp by following Wescott & Hort against the enemies of Scripture inherit in that discipline and explicit within that camp. He develops and applies this logical device as a doctrine of "inerrant original autographs," and publishes the same in his work on Inspiration.

Warfield, however, drastically departed from the historic Reformed scholastic method of Beza, Owen and Turretin and all of the Reformed Confessions that locate Authority in the apographs in possession of the Church. Warfied retained a certain scholastic view of verbal inspiration, but he located inerrancy only in the autograph and thus Authority. All Protestants had always asserted, against Rome, that God Providentially Preserved the text of Scripture, we know precisely what it is and we have it. The Protestant Church receives it as canonical, including 1 John 5:7-8, even though we cannot prove through the course of time how it came to be preserved in our Scriptures.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 5, 2008)

beej6 said:


> While disagreeing with the KJV presupposition of the TBS in their article, I would heartily agree with its assessment of the Church today.
> Would confessionalism help in this dilemma? I speak primarily of the first article of the WCF which establishes a doctrine of Scripture before embarking on a doctrine of God (the correct approach, In my humble opinion).



Protestant scholastics affirmed Scripture as the prolegomena to Scripture, prior to the doctrine of God, even in the absence of a prolegomena.

Providential Preservation defended this presupposition, which means that canonicity is received with the text of Scripture as a unified whole - which is why you have a declaration of canonicity of Scripture before you have a declaration of preservation in the Westminster Confession of Faith. You also have a denial of the canonicity of the Apocrapha before you have a declaration of preservation. So, in terms of Authority you have a positive thesis (what is Scripture), negative thesis (what is not Scripture), defense of thesis (providential preservation.)

The answer to your question is yes, confessionalism solves this dilemma, but if you disagree with the KVJ presupposition, then no, because you don't hold to the confession. The critical presupposition segregates canonicity from the text of Scripture, in that it searches for the Word of God independent of the text of Scripture. This is because you no longer receive the text of Scripture in it's final form but are searching for its initial form - hence canonicity is fluid. Which is precisely what Semler held and is a logical outworking of that presupposition.

It no longer holds to the Protestant scholastic approach where Scripture is the prolegomena to Scriptura, an unknown "inerrant original autograph" is the prolegomena - but since you don't know what that is precisely, men stand in it's place.


----------

