# Church-directed text & translations?



## Casey (Apr 11, 2006)

From my understanding, the RSV (and NRSV?) is the product of "the church" (if you consider the NCCC part of "the church"). Have any other attempts from a more evangelical, or even a Reformed perspective been done?

Is it a good idea that we allow a group of 5-6 people determine the text of the NT? And is it good that the church uses translations that are the result of commercial-driven ventures?

Thoughts?


----------



## larryjf (Apr 24, 2006)

I think the Trinitarian Bible Society believes churches should be translating the Scriptures. To that end they try to help churhces in doing the work of translation.

From http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/EbBI/fpm/2001/July/article7.htm...



> The 170th Annual Report of the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) has an interesting section about Bible translation work. The Society believes that it is the responsibility of the Christian churches throughout the world to translate the Scriptures, rather than Bible Societies and other parachurch ministries. The TBS therefore acts as a facilitator and helper in the work. It seeks translators, evaluates the needs of the people who desire an accurate translation, analyses existing translations, answers questions which are posed during the work, assists in checking and proof-reading, and finances various aspects of the project as God provides.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> From my understanding, the RSV (and NRSV?) is the product of "the church" (if you consider the NCCC part of "the church"). Have any other attempts from a more evangelical, or even a Reformed perspective been done?
> 
> Is it a good idea that we allow a group of 5-6 people determine the text of the NT? And is it good that the church uses translations that are the result of commercial-driven ventures?
> ...



I am having some pretty knee-jerk reactions to your question of whether 5-6 people determine the text. They don't...but I suspect you tipped your hand too quickly.

And, lest we get too carried away, the Textus Receptus was the result of a commercial-driven venture.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 26, 2006)

> And, lest we get too carried away, the Textus Receptus was the result of a commercial-driven venture.


I thought it was a state-driven venture.

StaunchPresbyterian ,

I guess the initial post should be clarified. It seems at first that it is a native language translation that is being referred to (which is why i brought up TBS). But then it seems the Greek NT itself is being referenced.

However, if the question is about English versions, and you like the fact that the RSV was a product of "the church" but want something more conservative - the ESV would probably suit you as it is basically a conservative revision of the RSV.

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by larryjf]


----------



## Peter (Apr 27, 2006)

In many cases I would assume it was a piety driven venture - examine Beza.


----------



## beej6 (Apr 27, 2006)

Casey, would the NCCC be considered a church? I don't think so - it's an ecumenical council or loose association of churches but I don't believe they "worship together" or have any unity in doctrine or church government other than the usual generic "statement of faith." (The current NCCC includes only one reformed church, the Hungarian; the PC (USA) are also members, of course.) I'd argue that the NCCC are not a church for the purposes of this thread. The logical extension of this would be that if the NCCC approved the RSV and prescribed it for use in their denominations, then all of those member denominations should have used it exclusively. (Of course, we're talking more than fifty years ago when the RSV was published; they still "own" the NRSV now.)

I suppose I would agree with the Trinitarian Bible Society that the (a?) church should be overseeing translations. My church history is rudimentary, but I don't believe that there are any church-directed texts in the Reformation age, except for the KJV perhaps (Church of England). I know some will make an argument for the continued use of the KJV as a primary translation (extremely, as the *only* translation) based on an argument of providential preservation. However, I don't see God's providence over His word as having ended with King James ;-), and that the use of a Bible produced outside the church can, Lord willing, be used by the church to convict sinners and proclaim Christ crucified.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 27, 2006)

The Free Reformed Churches in their 2004 Synod Report had set up a committee to examine the possibility of establishing a multi denominational "soft" revision on the KJV, removing the archaisms and such from the text and replacing them with modern words. The project has not been picked up on by any other denomination yet although the Free Church Continuing and the Protestant Reformed Church have shown an interest. Perhaps they will all look at it again in a few years. I for one would be interested in such a revision.

FYI, the Churches consulted were the Free Reformed Churches, the Heritage Reformed Churches, the Free Church Continuing, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and the Protestant Reformed Church. Individuals were also approached, such as J. Beeke, Iain Murray, and Sinclair Ferguson.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> The Free Reformed Churches in their 2004 Synod Report had set up a committee to examine the possibility of establishing a multi denominational "soft" revision on the KJV, removing the archaisms and such from the text and replacing them with modern words. The project has not been picked up on by any other denomination yet although the Free Church Continuing and the Protestant Reformed Church have shown an interest. Perhaps they will all look at it again in a few years. I for one would be interested in such a revision.
> 
> FYI, the Churches consulted were the Free Reformed Churches, the Heritage Reformed Churches, the Free Church Continuing, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and the Protestant Reformed Church. Individuals were also approached, such as J. Beeke, Iain Murray, and Sinclair Ferguson.



That has already been done. It's called the New King James Version.


----------



## beej6 (Apr 28, 2006)

Rev. Carroll, you mean a revision has been done, but not a church-endorsed one?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 28, 2006)

Well, the NKJV has been around for a good deal of time. Not sure if it has been endorsed. Not sure if that is significant. We have the Scriptures today because of the work of monks (some...maybe many...of whom were probably lost) through a thousand years of medieval history. Yet God's Word is preserved.

And please call me Kevin.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 28, 2006)

It sounds like JOwen is talking about an updating of the verbiage in the KJV. That is different from the NKJV which is a new translation of the texts that underlie the KJV (although i'm not sure which TR the NKJV translators used).

If they end up doing the revision it will be interesting to see if they change "easter" to "passover" in Acts 12:4 (personally, i believe it should be changed).


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> It sounds like JOwen is talking about an updating of the verbiage in the KJV. That is different from the NKJV which is a new translation of the texts that underlie the KJV (although i'm not sure which TR the NKJV translators used).
> 
> If they end up doing the revision it will be interesting to see if they change "easter" to "passover" in Acts 12:4 (personally, i believe it should be changed).



My bad, then. I did not realize the NKJV was a new translation. I thought it just eliminated the archaism and smoothed out some of the rough syntax of the KJV.

Personally, I find the idea of multiple TR's hilarious.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 28, 2006)

> Personally, I find the idea of multiple TR's hilarious.


Kevin, i'm not sure what you mean.

There was the TR of Erasmus - 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535.
Stephanus edition - 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551.
Beza edition - 9 editions between 1565-1604.
Elzevirs edition - 1624, 1633 (the one that actually had the term textum receptum in the preface), 1641.

There is also the reverse-engineered TR of Scriverner - 1894.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> 
> 
> > Personally, I find the idea of multiple TR's hilarious.
> ...



I find it amusing because the TR is, as the name says, the "received text" of the NT. It makes me wonder if there is a TR of the TR upon which majority text translations are based.

Not being a majority guy, I don't have the worry. Just struck by it, is all.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 28, 2006)

Kevin,

I assume then that you are a "critical text" guy.
If so, do you have any links that you could provide me that have good resources for a pro-critical text point of view?
I don't want to get this post off of topic, so you can U2U me if you want.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> Kevin,
> 
> I assume then that you are a "critical text" guy.
> ...



Metzger's book The Text of the New Testament is probably the best lay-book on the subject.

And yes, you would be correct in your assumption.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 28, 2006)

Thanks Kevin.

Yes, i enjoyed Metzger's book.
I have also heard some good things about "A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible" By Paul D. Wegner...
http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2731

But i was hoping for some online resources as well (they are free!!).

It just seems like there is so much online for the opposing view, it would be nice to have some quality sites that were pro-critical text.

There is some good stuff over at bible.org...
http://www.bible.org/topic.asp?topic_id=24

But outside of that i can't think of any.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 28, 2006)

Larry, I haven't done a lot of online reading on the subject, so I would hate to do a keyword search and paste a few url's for fear that might not make the case well. Metzger is worth the price. He makes the best case for the critical text there is.


----------

