# Order of things with respect to translations of the Bible



## sotzo (Jan 30, 2009)

In a previous thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/, Rev. Winzer stated:

"To restate a point I made in an earlier thread -- translations reflect the biblical and theological understanding of the men who make them. Translations differ because men approach the Scriptures with different beliefs. Which shows the absurdity of trusting to a translation (or lexicon, or interlinear, or any other Bible tool) made by men who are not of our profession."

If translations reflect the biblical and theological understanding of men, presumably from their study of the Gk manuscripts, then I don't see how we can escape a TR view. Otherwise, biblical and theological understanding (BTU) becomes the engine that pulls the manuscripts, followed by the translations, which leads to subjectivity of the grossest kind. Seems to me that BTU must follow reliable manuscripts as an engine, then translations after BTU. 

Just realized the BTU shorthand reference may end up turning this into a thread on appropriate ways to heat spaces in your house!


----------



## TimV (Jan 30, 2009)

Joel, how did you come to that conclusion? Have you been follow these threads? Here is one of the nicer things Luther said about the author of the TR.



> I at one time attributed to him a singular kind of inconsistency and vain-talking, for he seemed to treat on sacred and serious things with the greatest unconcern; and on the contrary, to pursue baubles, vanities, and things laughable and ridiculous with the utmost avidity; though an old man, and a theologian; and that, in an age, the most industrious and laborious. So that I really thought, that what I had heard many men of wisdom and gravity say, was true - that Erasmus was actually mad.
> 
> When I first wrote against his Diatribe, and was compelled to weigh his words, (as John says "try the Spirits,") being disgusted at his inconsiderateness in a subject of so much importance; in order that I might rouse up the cold and doltish disputer, I goaded him as if in a snoring sleep; calling him a disciple, at one time, of Epicurus, at another, of Lucian, and then again, declaring him to be of the opinion of the sceptics; supposing, that by these means he might, perhaps, be roused up to enter upon the subject with more feeling. But all was in vain. I only irritated the viper, so as to cause him at last to give birth to hisVIPERASPIS, an offspring worthy of, and exactly like, its parent. But however, he proudly omitted to say one single word to the subject point. So that, from that time, I have despaired of his theology altogether.
> 
> Now, however, I am quite of your opinion, that it was not inconsiderateness in him, but as you say, real ignorance and malice. For he was unacquainted with our doctrines, or the doctrines of Christianity; he knew them, but from policy would not know them. *And though he may not understand, nor indeed can understand, those doctrines which are peculiar to our fraternity*, and which we maintain against the synagogue of the Pope, yet he cannot be ignorant of those which are held in common by us and the church under the Pope; because, he writes on these very largely, or rather, laughs at them.





> *He published lately, among his other works, hisCATECHISM, a production evidently of Satanic subtlety. For, with a purpose full of craft, he designs to take children and youths at the outset, and to infect them with his poisons*, that they might not afterwards be eradicated from them; just as he himself, in Italy and at Rome, so sucked in his doctrines of sorcerers and of devils that now all remedy is too late.



Luther's Letter to Armsdoff Concerning Erasmus


----------



## sotzo (Jan 30, 2009)

Tim:

Thanks for the Luther quote. 

Where is my conclusion invalid? Here is my thought process:

1. Either it is or is not the case that "translations reflect the biblical and theological understanding of the men who make them". 
2. If it is the case, then those BTUs are either based on manuscripts or they are not.
3. If they are not, then those BTUs are grossly subjective since there is no text steering them (at best only natural theology).

If this is sound, then I don't see how we can avoid the gross subjectivity outside of a TR view because in the absence of a faithful text we have nowhere else to turn to formulate our BTUs.

I guess you are right though that the only way to justify the TR getting us out of this jam is to see some kind of ability on Erasmus' part to not be subject to BTUs prior to the text. Hmmm....


----------



## TimV (Jan 30, 2009)

> 1. Either it is or is not the case that "translations reflect the biblical and theological understanding of the men who make them".



Joel, if you've been reading these threads one point the AVers make is that Erasmus' scholarship trumped his dislike of much of Reformed thought. And if you take the King James, remember that there are 80 books in the 1611 version. Ask yourself why.



> 2. If it is the case, then those BTUs are either based on manuscripts or they are not.



No, that's frankly somewhat shallow. Erasmus thought anyone who denied Mary remained a virgin after Christ was a blasphemer. Most of us Protestants think otherwise, and we all take our positions from the same verses. We just interpret them differently.



> 3. If they are not, then those BTUs are grossly subjective since there is no text steering them (at best only natural theology).



Subjective? That's an interesting view coming from a member of a PCA church. Most AVers are Baptists, and use the same verses your denomination uses to come to totally different conclusion. Right? Please give that some thought.



> If this is sound, then I don't see how we can avoid the gross subjectivity outside of a TR view because in the absence of a faithful text we have nowhere else to turn to formulate our BTUs.



You are in effect saying that the ESV isn't a faithful text. At least you will if you go down the path you're on.



> I guess you are right though that the only way to justify the TR getting us out of this jam is to see some kind of ability on Erasmus' part to not be subject to BTUs prior to the text. Hmmm....



In other words, to make him a solid Calvinist......Have you read through that link to Luther's letter about Erasmus yet?


> This is also a notable instance of the piety of Erasmus! - In his letter upon 'Christian philosophy,' which is published with his New Testament, and used in common throughout all the churches, when he had propounded the question, - 'Why Christ, so great a teacher, descended from heaven, when there are many things taught even among the heathens which are precisely the same, if not more perfect;' - he answers, 'Christ came (which I doubt not but he believed most Erasmianly) from heaven, that He might exemplify those things more perfectly and more fully than any of the saints before Him!'
> 
> Thus, this miserable renewer of all things, Christ , (for so He reproaches the Lord of glory) has lost the glory of a Redeemer, and becomes only one more holy than others. - This sentiment could not be expressed in ignorance, but must have been designed and willful; because, even those who do not truly believe, know, and every where confess, that Christ descended from heaven to redeem us men from sin and death.


----------



## sotzo (Jan 30, 2009)

Tim: I'm new to this issue...just trying to put points down so folks like you can critique...I'm nowhere near dogmatic on this issue.



> Joel, if you've been reading these threads one point the AVers make is that Erasmus' scholarship trumped his dislike of much of Reformed thought. And if you take the King James, remember that there are 80 books in the 1611 version. Ask yourself why.



OK. So Erasmus came to the text with his presuppositions too. I understand what you are saying...what's good for the goose is good for the gander.



> Subjective? That's an interesting view coming from a member of a PCA church. Most AVers are Baptists, and use the same verses your denomination uses to come to totally different conclusion. Right? Please give that some thought.



Right...I'm not saying that subjectivity isn't in the equation. We are creatures and can only know via the interpretive process. What I am speaking of is gross subjectivity that would create a situation where doctrine is left *solely* to the whim of subjectivity (or again, at best, natural theology). 



> You are in effect saying that the ESV isn't a faithful text. At least you will if you go down the path you're on.



Honestly, all I'm trying to do is understand the definition of "a faithful text" or "faithful translation". What is your definition of those?



> In other words, to make him a solid Calvinist......



Well sure, but that would be both illegitimate and as C.S. Lewis put it "anachronistic snobbery".

I'm very interested to get your take on what constitutes a faithful text / translation and how we can be sure we are thinking God's thoughts after him based on His Word. In other words, right interpretation of a right text.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 30, 2009)

First, I think the relationship between doctrine and translation can be overstated. Even people with very similar doctrines may disagree with how a text should be translated. Conversely, people with very divergent doctrinal stances will often agree on the best translation of a verse. Translational philosophy, rather than doctrinal variance, is usually responsible for translation differences. Also, most translations are pretty good at disclosing other translation choices in the footnotes, so no one is hiding anything. To produce a truly doctrinally biased translation like the JW's New World Translation takes a decided effort and a lot of work.

Second, I don't think a necessary connection can be made between translation and manuscripts. They are two different fields. I don't think that a Baptist text critic will come up with a "Baptist" New Testament, though of course some temptation exists. It may be somewhat of a blessing that much of text criticism has been done by people not particularly interested in theology, since they have less of a theological agenda to push. In any case, I think there is too much polarization and either/or mentality. My NT professor prefers the Majority Text, but he once preached out of Colossians using the UBS4 reading, because after studying it he thought it was the most likely. We need more mature reflection, and less labeling for convenience. The easy way, but not the right way, is simply to declare the UBS4 or the H-F Majority Text or the Scrivener TR inerrant.


----------



## TimV (Jan 30, 2009)

> What I am speaking of is gross subjectivity that would create a situation where doctrine is left solely to the whim of subjectivity (or again, at best, natural theology).



In a perfect world a group of Elders in good standing in Reformed churches with an unlimited budget that would allow rewards for manuscripts etc..would gather together the best linguists in the world and oversee a new compilation. But even then I would prefer the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. *I would prefer that doctrine is left untampered with *except when absolutely necessary, i.e. when a word or phrase just has to be chosen above another because there is no word for word equivalency in English with the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek..



> I'm very interested to get your take on what constitutes a faithful text / translation and how we can be sure we are thinking God's thoughts after him based on His Word. In other words, right interpretation of a right text.



I have more than my share of moral failings, but I'm not anywhere near arrogant enough to think I can answer that question. So l leave it to people more knowledgeable than myself. And the overwhelming number of Reformed Elders have no problem using multiple versions based on different texts. In your denominations Elders regularly use the KJV, NKJV, ASV, ESV...and very often do their own translations.

Those people are charged with the health of your very soul, and you should assume that in a denomination of a third of a million people with some of the best minds on the planet these questions have occured to them.

For now, I would encourage you to consider the versions you hear from the pulpit of your denomination to be faithful.


----------



## sotzo (Jan 30, 2009)

I keep going back to the idea that even if we had the autographa, we would still be creatures having to interpret it. So having the autographs themselves would not remove doctrinal differences unless we assume that God would have brought absolute complete doctrinal unity out of His preservation of the autographa...a big leap of faith.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 30, 2009)

In my opinion we should not blur the lines of distinction between translating the Bible and dealing with the original languages manuscripts. These are very different disciplines.

Regarding translations i believe the KJV was the last to be translated from a confessional committee...as they adhered to the 39 articles. However, that doesn't answer the question of manuscripts at all. Clearly Erasmus was not confessional, yet he played a large role in the development of the TR.

It should be pointed out that many confessional believers today approve of the eclectic text as opposed to the received text...and many approve of the ESV as a translation.

Should we accept a text and translation based on the approval of confessionals, or should we demand a text and translation that comes from the confessionals?

-----Added 1/30/2009 at 10:37:56 EST-----



TimV said:


> For now, I would encourage you to consider the versions you hear from the pulpit of your denomination to be faithful.



I agree with this statement.
In the Scripture we are not told which specific text to use. What we are given is by way of example...Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted from the commonly read version of their day even if it wasn't the original Hebrew....and they did so considering it the very words of God.


----------

