Bible Translations

[Brad_W]

A woman was telling me today about the comparing two versions of the Bible.  A conversation i try to avoid at all costs by the way at work.  So I just listened.  She said something interesting which I thought I might get some clarifiction on here.  She was telling me it is her understanding that the versions have been "changed" to suit doctrine.  So I guess it kind of that "what came first" scenario of the doctrine or the Bible?  And what "drives" what? 

As she was talking, I couldn't help but go back in my mind to the story of Moses on the mountain and coming down with the 10 Commandments.  He breaks them, goes back up, and writes new tablets.  I've never heard thought on this to be a kind of foreshadowing of what we would do with God's Word later on.  And when you look at all the different versions and translations, and the discussions that surround the differences; it just got me to wondering if this was an event to show us what would come.  Maybe you've heard this in some of your classes Joseph or anyone else?

[timetravel]

I prefer the NASB for study and the CEV for pleasure reading.  I attended a KJVOnly church and would laugh as the preacher stumbled over the verses and then explain them using the words in my NASB. 

[Choisya]

Thanks Jon - it is possible that I am confused.  I don't know how to put this diplomatically......as I see all of them as fairy stories, like Cinderella or Snow White, the accuracy of the translations is meaningless to me - all I want is a good story, well, and preferably poetically, told.    Sorry if this view offends anyone.    

And let's talk about the 'accuracy'  of translations in, say, 50 or 500 years time - King James also thought his committee of 50 men were accurate.   Whilst there are articles like this about the inaccuracy of translations of Biblical texts, or while there are so many different translations on the market, my personal jury is still out.  

---

Jon_B wrote:

Choisya it seems to me that you might be confusing the question of "does this text accurately describe a historic event?" with the question of "does this (English) text accurately portray what this (Greek/Hebrew/Arabic/etc) text was meant to say?".  I take your point that the original religious texts had an agenda behind them and as such the degree to which they accurately portray history is suspect.  However the question of whether the English translations of one of those texts is linguistically accurate has little to do with whether you believe in what the original text is saying or not, because that is merely a matter of translation, not of religious belief.  So one can still say "text B is an accurate translation of text A" even if you don't personally believe in what text A is saying.

For instance if I say "Je m'appelle Michael" you would know that "My name is Michael" is a more accurate translation of what I said than "My name is Peter", even though you are well aware that my name is neither Michael nor Peter.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 04-04-2009 06:48 AM

[Everyman]

Speaking from an outside prospective, all religious interpretations have to be considered valid.

That's an interesting comment which probably deserves its own thread for discussion at some point.  

I'm not sure I agree, though it depends heavily on what one considers "valid." 

This isn't the place to discuss that point of view, but perhaps you will find an appropriate time and place. 

[Everyman]

Incredible  to think that it (the KJV) was put together by a Committee of 50 men!

And not one woman!  

[Everyman]

So I guess what I'm trying to understand here is whether you disbelieve any information not gathered first hand (and the disbelief of most academic methods of research and presentation that implies) or whether you have a special disbelief for historical and/or linguistic work involving religious text, even when not done by or for the religious.

I think perhaps an analogy might be the study of poetry and first person accounts written about Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster) by one who was convinced it was all pure fiction.   You wouldn't care about the truth or accuracy of the accounts, since you would consider them all just self-delusion.  You might still read the accounts and poetry because of the beautiful language and because, especially if you were a Scot, it would be part of your national heritage, but you wouldn't believe a word of it, and you might think that some of the poetry had meaningful insights in their own right, but as far as any content which attempted to represent that there was any truth about Nessie or tried to prove that he or she was an actual being, no.  

[Everyman]

I take your point that the original religious texts had an agenda behind them and as such the degree to which they accurately portray history is suspect.

If writing with an agenda behind it makes the content of the writing suspect, I doubt that there are more than 10 works of history, if that, that aren't suspect.  

Writing with an agenda can still be factually accurate.  

[Choisya]

The BBC Radio 4 Book of the Week readings are pertinent to our discussion about biblical translations and the disputes over them.  This is the monastery referred to in the book (click on the Gallery of Artefacts).

The Sisters of Sinai   

The monastery is the site of Moses' 'burning bush' which is possibly the rubus sanctus, or holy bramble.   There is some interesting speculation on the phenomena of burning bushes here. One of the likelier candidates is the dictamnus albus which is a middle eastern herb you could grow in your garden if you are in USDA region 3-7.

For the gardeners among you, here is a nice website about the plants mentioned in the Bible, which can be used to make a biblical garden.

Message Edited by Choisya on 04-07-2009 06:00 AM

[vivico1]

In my religion, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e, the Mormons) we use the King James version of the bible. Of the earlier versions, we believe it to contain the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. That statement gets us into trouble with some other Christian religions who do not believe it is right to question the correctness of it at all. But we all know there are mistranslations. After all, it was put together by 40-50 men, and as I recall, they were either in like 5 groups of 10 or 10 groups of 5, all working in different places on different parts and then brought together for the final compilation, some left out at the order of King James and the church. I personally believe some of the mistranslation was intentional, but its still for our purposes, the best of what we have.

I also believe the more the scriptures are translated tho, time after time and to make them "easier to read" or more in line with "today's language", the more you lose of the original meanings. There is another problem with the thousands of translations and versions that keep coming out, especially in America, which proport to be "translated from the original Hebrew". Now how did they do that? How can everyone putting out a version be translating from the "original"? This would be to assume that they have the handwritten manuscripts of Paul, or Matthew for example. Those were the original. Any more today are really translations of translations. You can't take a word or phrase that was written in Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic, translate it  to English, then take that word, translate it back to Hebrew and then say this is what that word really meant in this English version from the original Hebrew. That is just 2 well 3 translations, none from the "original hand written epistles".

Another reason for us to use the King James, is that it is pretty universal. And what makes it a good choice is just what you are talking about Laurel, how important it is in a bible study group or just at church on Sunday or whenever, to all be using the same version. So for us, it is the official version for the Church so that no matter were you go in the world, you can walk into a Mormon church and know that you will all be studying from the same scriptures. Also, it is a language which we should all take the time to learn (the poetry of it and this part is just my opinion, not speaking for my church).

---

Laurel wrote:

I have been reading the King James Version since I was six years old, and it is so much a part of me that any other version is a bit of a jolt. The people in my church use a variety of modern versions, so I get jolted quite often. Because of all those years of saturation in King James's English, reading, watching, or listening to Shakepeare comes quite easily to me. I have read quite a bit of the literature about Bible versions and translations through the years, and some of the scholarship I accept, some I don't.

I lead a Bible study with women in my neighborhood, many of whom use other versions, and I find that it is often helpful to hear a passage read from several versions or translations, though it is confusing at times.

I studied Greek for two years in college, but no Hebrew. I spent about two and a half years reading through the French Bible recently and found it was quite easy to do, since I already knew what it said. Now I have Luther's Bible and a Russian Bible that I want to do the same with, but probably more slowly.

---

[Peppermill]

Another reason for us to use the King James, is that it is pretty universal. And what makes it a good choice is just what you are talking about Laurel, how important it is in a bible study group or just at church on Sunday or whenever, to all be using the same version.

Vivian -- My experience is that this can very much depend on the leader and her or his skill and knowledge.  It was a brilliant pastor who taught me the value of various translations, the insights they provided, and how they are usually additive in value in understanding the text.  She was always exceedingly careful to respect those members of the group who, for one reason or another, strongly preferred one particular version. 

But, she was also fond of pointing out the difficulties of translating the few thousand word language of ancient Hebrew into the vastly larger English/American we speak and read today.  For example, the Hebrew word "ruah" was used for wind, breath, and spirit, concepts later languages differentiated in their words.  At times, "playing" (in the creative sense) with these possible translations added considerable depth to the meanings of the passages under consideration. 

Greek can be challenging in the other direction.  As is well known, Greek uses several words that distinguish several kinds of love, words that are often translated into the more generic concept "love" when rendered in English.

Pepper

[Joseph_F]

---

Peppermill wrote:
But, she was also fond of pointing out the difficulties of translating the few thousand word language of ancient Hebrew into the vastly larger English/American we speak and read today.  For example, the Hebrew word "ruah" was used for wind, breath, and spirit, concepts later languages differentiated in their words.  At times, "playing" (in the creative sense) with these possible translations added considerable depth to the meanings of the passages under consideration. 

---

This is an excellent point. For instance, the famous line about the Spirit of God moving across the face of the waters can just as easily (and accurately) be translated "a wind from God blew across the surface of the water". Which is more accurate? They are both 100% equally accurate, in terms of what the words literally mean. Hopefully you can see from this example the extreme difficulty of translating this text. It is never, ever, a simple one to one translation.

In terms of the "original Hebrew text" we actually probably have a much more accurate version of that original now than we did at the time of the King James. At that time they were dealing mainly with translations of translations, and probably rarely were using the original at all. Now we have literally hundreds of ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible, allowing us to get a sense from all the minor variations what the "original" (there is no exact original, it was originally an oral tradition) should look like.

 Interesting side note having nothing to do with all this: The Hebrew word for water is "mayim". The Hebrew word for Heaven (also for "sky" but as peppermill pointed out, most Hebrew words mean multiple things) is "shamayim". Is it coincidence that a desert culture had remarkably similar words for "water" and "heaven"? 

 

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 04-11-2009 04:52 AM

[Peppermill]

I spent some time this morning with David Dewey's User's Guide to Bible Translations.  I am continuously struck by how difficult I find it to post on various Biblical translations, regardless of how carefully I attempt to parse what I say.

Although I can't begin to do justice to the range of considerations Dewey presents, I will share a few that caught my attention today:

"According to James 5:11, 'the Lord is very pitiful.'  That is how, nearly four hundred years ago, the translators of the AV/KJV rendered the wonderful-sounding Greek word polysplanchnos.  At the time it was a perfectly correct rendering, but today it would be both misleading and inaccurate to translate it as 'pitiful.' Today pitiful means 'wretched' or 'pathetic,' not 'full of pity' as it once did.  Most modern versions go with 'full of compassion' (NIV) or something similar." p. 97.

"The lengthy preface to the AV/KJV (worth reading in full though it appears infrequently in modern editions) states clearly that it was not the aim to make "a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one.'" p.127

I have never read that preface.  I shall have to see if any of my KJV copies or my church library has it.

"Although a composite revision of preceding Bibles (and nominally a revision of the Bishop's Bible), it is the work of Tyndale that dominates the AV/KJV.  An analysis made in 1998 demonstrates that Tyndale's words account for 84 percent of the New Testament and 75 of those Old Testament books that he translated.  His genius as a translator shines through in page after page and phrase after phrase. Many of his phrases have become proverbial and are in common use even by those who have little idea of their biblical origin." pp. 127-28.

"Bruce Metzger says of the AV/KJV that a great deal of the praise belongs to its predecessors: "For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale; for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version." The AV/KJV is at its best when it stays closest to Tyndale.  It is weakest when it does not..." p.128.

Let this be enough for this post.  I have added Wikipedia links for people and Bible versions for which I felt I would appreciate a reminder of whom and what they are.  As always, use Wikipedia with caution if digging into the detail provided. (AV -- Authorized Version)

I'm not certain I have captured this idea with the quotations above, but one of the overriding messages to me from Dewey is the great care with which the Bible has been transmitted through the centuries. "While interest naturally focuses on those places where the Qumran texts [Dead Sea Scrolls] differ from the MT [Masoretic Text], it should be pointed out that the DSS agree far more often with the MT than they disagree with it... More than anything else, the DSS underline the reliability of the MT." p.209.

[utopian]

---

Joseph_F wrote:

---

Peppermill wrote:
But, she was also fond of pointing out the difficulties of translating the few thousand word language of ancient Hebrew into the vastly larger English/American we speak and read today.  For example, the Hebrew word "ruah" was used for wind, breath, and spirit, concepts later languages differentiated in their words.  At times, "playing" (in the creative sense) with these possible translations added considerable depth to the meanings of the passages under consideration. 

---

This is an excellent point. For instance, the famous line about the Spirit of God moving across the face of the waters can just as easily (and accurately) be translated "a wind from God blew across the surface of the water". Which is more accurate? They are both 100% equally accurate, in terms of what the words literally mean. Hopefully you can see from this example the extreme difficulty of translating this text. It is never, ever, a simple one to one translation.

In terms of the "original Hebrew text" we actually probably have a much more accurate version of that original now than we did at the time of the King James. At that time they were dealing mainly with translations of translations, and probably rarely were using the original at all. Now we have literally hundreds of ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible, allowing us to get a sense from all the minor variations what the "original" (there is no exact original, it was originally an oral tradition) should look like.

 Interesting side note having nothing to do with all this: The Hebrew word for water is "mayim". The Hebrew word for Heaven (also for "sky" but as peppermill pointed out, most Hebrew words mean multiple things) is "shamayim". Is it coincidence that a desert culture had remarkably similar words for "water" and "heaven"? 

 

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 04-11-2009 04:52 AM

---

I have also heard that the word for "rib" and "side" are the same in Hebrew.   Creating Eve from Adam's "rib" seems to make less sense  than removing the female "side" from man.  Also, the word for messiah is moshiach while the word for saviour is moshiah.  Then there's the rays of light that came from Moses' head and was mistranslated as horns.  Young girl may have been mistranslated as virgin.  It boggles the mind to think of all the mistaken ideas that have been a result of mistranslations.

[Joseph_F]

---

utopian wrote:

Then there's the rays of light that came from Moses' head and was mistranslated as horns.  Young girl may have been mistranslated as virgin.  It boggles the mind to think of all the mistaken ideas that have been a result of mistranslations.

---

These are certainly two of the most famous mistranslations from the KJV. From my understanding, neither of these are ambiguities, the words were simply mistranslated completely. "Ray" and "horn" are not the same word, and "young girl" and "virgin" are not the same word. The verses were simply translated completely incorrectly and the result was massive on history for centuries to come.

[Peppermill]

---

Joseph_F wrote:

---

utopian wrote:

Then there's the rays of light that came from Moses' head and was mistranslated as horns.  Young girl may have been mistranslated as virgin.  It boggles the mind to think of all the mistaken ideas that have been a result of mistranslations.

---

These are certainly two of the most famous mistranslations from the KJV. From my understanding, neither of these are ambiguities, the words were simply mistranslated completely. "Ray" and "horn" are not the same word, and "young girl" and "virgin" are not the same word. The verses were simply translated completely incorrectly and the result was massive on history for centuries to come.

---

I think we need to be careful about "blaming" "mistranslations" for the meanings that have been ascribed to words and concepts.  They can be two entirely independent processes and each can "correct" or amplify or obscure or falsify the other, although certainly either can also be tools of political aims.

For me, I usually find it more useful to consider the range brought to the human understanding by both the errors and the clarifications.

One I am wrestling with right now, which is somewhat different in a literary sense, is Dante's placement of Muhammad in the deepest reaches  of The Inferno -- what impact does that conceit have on modern international relationships, not that so many people read The Divine Comedy today, but because many of Dante's ideas (thoughts) are so infused in the "Great Conversation" and the assumptions of current day discourse.

("Crusade" certainly had seemed a milder word to me than it was apparently interpreted in the Muslim world when President Bush used it.)

[Joseph_F]

---

Peppermill wrote:

---

Joseph_F wrote:

---

utopian wrote:

Then there's the rays of light that came from Moses' head and was mistranslated as horns.  Young girl may have been mistranslated as virgin.  It boggles the mind to think of all the mistaken ideas that have been a result of mistranslations.

---

These are certainly two of the most famous mistranslations from the KJV. From my understanding, neither of these are ambiguities, the words were simply mistranslated completely. "Ray" and "horn" are not the same word, and "young girl" and "virgin" are not the same word. The verses were simply translated completely incorrectly and the result was massive on history for centuries to come.

---

I think we need to be careful about "blaming" "mistranslations" for the meanings that have been ascribed to words and concepts.  They can be two entirely independent processes and each can "correct" or amplify or obscure or falsify the other, although certainly either can also be tools of political aims.

---

Maybe, but certainly translating as "horn" instead of "ray" and "virgin" instead of "young woman" are simple cases of just getting the translation wrong, and those mistranslations have been directly responsible for the meanings attached to them subsequently. 

[Peppermill]

Maybe, but certainly translating as "horn" instead of "ray" and "virgin" instead of "young woman" are simple cases of just getting the translation wrong, and those mistranslations have been directly responsible for the meanings attached to them subsequently.

Joseph -- Maybe, but without looking at the "history" of those "mistranslations" I am not so certain of "simple cases."  

As I recall, Crossan writes of the use of "virgin" in association with the birth stories of pagan leaders as well.  We may have a word that had quite different meanings and implications in the original text and culture -- it is not clear to me that "virgin" was simply a "wrong" translation nor that "virgin" had the medical/physical implications that it did for later generations.  Also, the translation issues may be different for Isaiah than for Luke.   Or, maybe you can point us to the better/relevant scholarship.

The "horn" versus "ray" issue I have paid less attention to, although I am certainly not a scholar on either one.  (It certainly would have made a lot more statues difficult to identify.   )

---

Joseph_F wrote:

---

Peppermill wrote:

---

Joseph_F wrote:

---

utopian wrote:

Then there's the rays of light that came from Moses' head and was mistranslated as horns.  Young girl may have been mistranslated as virgin.  It boggles the mind to think of all the mistaken ideas that have been a result of mistranslations.

---

These are certainly two of the most famous mistranslations from the KJV. From my understanding, neither of these are ambiguities, the words were simply mistranslated completely. "Ray" and "horn" are not the same word, and "young girl" and "virgin" are not the same word. The verses were simply translated completely incorrectly and the result was massive on history for centuries to come.

---

I think we need to be careful about "blaming" "mistranslations" for the meanings that have been ascribed to words and concepts.  They can be two entirely independent processes and each can "correct" or amplify or obscure or falsify the other, although certainly either can also be tools of political aims.

For me, I usually find it more useful to consider the range brought to the human understanding by both the errors and the clarifications.

One I am wrestling with right now, which is somewhat different in a literary sense, is Dante's placement of Muhammad in the deepest reaches  of The Inferno -- what impact does that conceit have on modern international relationships, not that so many people read The Divine Comedy today, but because many of Dante's ideas (thoughts) are so infused in the "Great Conversation" and the assumptions of current day discourse.

("Crusade" certainly had seemed a milder word to me than it was apparently interpreted in the Muslim world when President Bush used it.)

---

Maybe, but certainly translating as "horn" instead of "ray" and "virgin" instead of "young woman" are simple cases of just getting the translation wrong, and those mistranslations have been directly responsible for the meanings attached to them subsequently. 

---

Message Edited by Peppermill on 04-13-2009 04:25 PM

[Everyman]

I'm in no way a Hebrew or Aramaic scholar, nor am I a Biblical Greek scholar (what Greek I have is classical Greek), but I wonder whether those different translations were known at the time of the KJV, or whether they have emerged from more recent scholarship.  That is, were the translations known to the translators to be inaccurate, or were they accurate translations given the state of understanding of the original language at the time of the translations?

Scholarship into ancient languages has certainly made significant strides in the past four centuries, so it may (or of course may not) be that the translations were considered accurate based on the understanding of the language at the time.

And, of course, if one holds the viewpoint, as many do, that the translations were divinely inspired and guided, those were the words that God wished the translators to use, however we may view them today.  Sensitivity to those who hold this position would suggest that perhaps we should not call them outright erroneous translations, since that disrespects those who consider the words to be the literal words of God.   

[utopian]

I had not realized this.  The translations are considered divinely inspired?

[Everyman]

By some, absolutely.  Most of these believers consider the King James Version to have been divinely inspired.

I'm not sure how large the number of such believers is, but they certainly exist.  

---

utopian wrote:

I had not realized this.  The translations are considered divinely inspired?

---