All Translations are Imperfect

[Philip]

Thanks! Any reading material you could point me to for more detail?

W.V.O. Quine's Word and Object is the classic text. The basic contours of the idea can be found on the Wikipedia page for Indeterminacy of Translation. In terms of Bible translation this helps us because it tells us that knowing the whole Bible is crucial to translating it. In other words, when there is a hard passage, you look at other passages and books in the Bible to help you figure out how to render the word.

 

[JimmyH]

Raymond, did you mean to say more copies of Greek manuscripts ? Seems there are more than enough translations.

No, I meant more translations. Before the large discussion that occurred through page 2, it was remarked on page 1 that if translations contain errors, multiplying translations would multiply errors. Another responded to that using the analogy of "witnesses." I was picking up on that language in my question. My question was going along the lines of "If translations can contain no errors, wouldn't more translations be desirable?" Such was the nature of the question.

I'm just a neophyte in the study of this topic, but I think 'witnesses' refers to manuscripts in the original language rendered by copyists.

Translations, if I understand it correctly, are harvested from witnesses. I could be wrong.

Before I came to a conclusion on whether one translation or another was inspired I read opposing sides of the question. W.D. Mounce, a chairman of the ESV translation committee, and noted philologist/teacher, has a really interesting article with many examples of what the committees encounter in attempting to accurately render Koine into English. It can be found online, linked in a post I made earlier in this thread, or in his excellent book, "Greek For The Rest Of Us."

D,A, Carson's, "The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism," is also a quite reasoned explanation of the debate by another expert in the field. He has many sermons on youtube that are just exceptional as far as I'm concerned. Than there is James White who probably needs no introduction from me. All of these authors refer to controversies regarding whether one manuscript or another is imperfect, to what extent, and why.

If I read them correctly there is no effect on doctrine in that, if a word or phrase is not included in the text, but footnoted, bracketed or omitted, in a modern translation, there are corresponding words/phrases that support the very same doctrine within that translation. In other words, it is not out of heresy or evil machinations that the translation may vary from that of the TR based works. Rather it is because a mountain of evidence, accepted by NT scholars in the field, has been discovered in the past 150 years, that supports translations such as the NASB and ESV, among others.

Reading translations from both traditions has been beneficial for me. your mileage may vary (your mileage may vary)

 

[MW]

There is an antirealist strain in linguistics which relativises meaning and complicates matters unnecessarily so far as the target language is concerned. Translators pick up on this and seek to ground meaning in the individual reader, thus leading to the need for numerous translations.

 

[JimmyH]

In case anyone else is as challenged in philosophy as I am, and as curious, here is a site with a few paragraphs that will help with a basic definition, I guess, of anti realism ;

University of Glasgow :: School of Humanities :: Information for current students and staff :: Information for current students :: Philosophy current students :: Current Undergraduates :: Honours :: Honours course page directory :: SH12

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I keep seeing it asserted that there are errors in the manuscripts (the Greek), and that James White’s and D.A. Carson’s writings against the TR and AV should have the final words in the text-critical discussion. No doubt these things are being taught in the seminaries today, and it is a shame. It ends up like this: you cannot hold a Bible in your hands and say of it, “This is the intact word of God without error.” Instead we must concede to the skeptical critics who doubt we can ever recover the NT text, and the outright adversaries (such as Bart Ehrman) who say that if God didn’t bother to clearly preserve His word why should we think he inspired it in the first place? Once it is ceded there is no faithfully translated edition of an intact providentially preserved Greek and Hebrew Bible, the slope is not slippery but a sheer drop into eventual unbelief in the doctrine of providential preservation. I mean (for example), are the last twelve verses of Mark 16 authentic? Or “God manifest in the flesh” in 1 Tim 3:16, or the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11? Is it true that Matthew erred when he wrote in the genealogy of Christ that Asaph and Amos are to be listed rather than Asa and Amon (as the ESV and the Critical Greek text assert)? This is a doctrine that is imperiled when we defer to the unbelief of the modern schools:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical... (WCF 1:8)​

It really won’t do to say that, yes, we have the preserved text, it is somewhere among the many mss we have and we need the modern scholars to sort it out for us. When will it be finally sorted out? Must we wait till the LORD returns? I think we need it now as the encroaching darkness seethes with malign intent usward, coming in like a flood (Isa 59:19), so that the Spirit of the LORD may lift up a standard against it. And if we have not a sure word, what shall that standard be?

Harvard text critic, Edward Freer Hills, has this to say on the matter:

Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he must attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (The King James Version Defended by Dr. Edward F. Hills, p 1) [NOTE: The appearance of this online book (ISBN: 0-915923-00-9) is by the copyright holder, Mrs. Marjorie J. Hills, as implied by her wish that this online edition be made available in its entirety, unaltered and at no cost to the recipient who downloads it. (The text is Copyrighted and may not be reproduced for sale or profit.)]​

What follows is a brief quote by Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in the book he edited and contributed to, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’ ”.

Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence… (p 204)​

The larger discussion from which this above quote is taken is here.

Please note that I do not say there is not great value in the modern Bible versions (the woman through whom the Lord converted me used the Lamsa version of the Syriac Peshitta, and men of God have ministered God’s Spirit to me through versions other than the AV). It just grieves me to see repeated like a mantra the saying that there are errors in all our Bibles and manuscripts, destroying the doctrine of providential preservation. There is a lot at stake: the faith of some that we have a reliable Bible.

The modern versions, whatever good may be said of them (and good may indeed be said), are not exemplars of providential preservation. Bart Ehrman makes that clear. I intend on interacting with his views shortly, as I have mostly finished with my eschatology/Babylon project.

Regarding Dr. James White, I have interacted with his views here: Responding to James White of AOMIN, and another of his colleagues at AOMIN here: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin. And with numerous other specific texts and textual issues here.

I saw someone ask earlier in this thread, Is there Biblical warrant for the view that the Bible God gave us must have error in it? I say there is warrant for just the opposite:

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever (Isaiah 59:21).

​

 

[ZackF]

Must all translations be imperfect, containing some error? If so, how can the translation be considered the Word of God, since one of the qualities of the Word of God is that it contains no error?

Are all translations imperfect, containing some error? If so, how can the translation be considered the Word of God, since one of the qualities of the Word of God is that it contains no error?

(By "containing no error", I mean that if a word is translated incorrectly, then that word cannot be considered the Word of God in the same sense as a word that is translated correctly. There is probably a better way to phrase the question, since it is possible that the mistranslation does not create an actual error; but I guess "mistranslation" is only one way to understand "error in translation" and "imperfect translations.")

It seems it depends on what is meant by "perfect" and "error." I hear these claims frequently, but I'm not sure in what senses they are intended. In what senses are the above claims true or false and how does that tie in with the translation possessing the qualities of inspiration, infallibility, etc., since it is the Word of God? Maybe it is only mostly the Word of God or is the Word of God for all practical purposes, with only a few bad translations that cannot be considered God's Word?

Can imperfect, non autographic, manuscripts be God's Word? I've never found the translation debates as interesting nor important as those over the various manuscripts. Though I lack the knowledge to debate these issues.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks, Philip!

There is an antirealist strain in linguistics which relativises meaning and complicates matters unnecessarily so far as the target language is concerned. Translators pick up on this and seek to ground meaning in the individual reader, thus leading to the need for numerous translations.

Interesting analysis. What do you think about multiplying translations to flesh out more detail?

I'm just a neophyte in the study of this topic, but I think 'witnesses' refers to manuscripts in the original language rendered by copyists.

Translations, if I understand it correctly, are harvested from witnesses. I could be wrong.

This is usually correct. However, in this thread, the word "witness" was used in a different manner. It's a minor point though since it relates only to a mode of expression for the question in which I had used the word "witnesses."

Can imperfect, non autographic, manuscripts be God's Word? I've never found the translation debates as interesting nor important as those over the various manuscripts. Though I lack the knowledge to debate these issues.

This question assumes some things that those who might answer do not grant, but translations and apographs are considered God's Word in this thread, and they seem to be so considered by the WCF. See the previous few pages for further info, I suppose, considering also the fact that preachers believe their translations are God's Word because they refer to them as "the holy, infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of God." Although this topic was discussed to some extent in the thread, the OP assumes translations to be the Word of God (and the thread is technically about translation, not the original language), so it might be worth considering moving this sort of discussion to another thread if one wishes to discuss it in even further detail than it has already been discussed.

 

[JimmyH]

Thanks for the clarification Raymond. The 'witnesses' put my brain in original manuscript mode. I doubt if there has ever been a thread on the PB, on the question of translations, that didn't digress into the controversy.

Back on topic, it might be worth noting that the three individual pastors I've heard preach at the OPC congregation, of which I am a member, used the NKJV, the NASB, and the 1984 NIV respectively. The pew Bibles furnished are either the NIV (1984) or the NASB. Say that to say, that I assume the aforementioned pastors must be confident that the translations they are preaching from are indeed the Word of God.