Giving Good News

Having thus a fond affection for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.  1 Thessalonians 2:8 (NASB)

A Fond Affection – While most readers of the Bible don’t know it, there are often minor differences in the various Greek texts that underlie our translations.  The original text is no longer available to us, so we rely on copies.  There are literally thousands of fragments of these copies, and they don’t always agree.  So, if you picked up the latest Greek text of the New Testament (the Nestle Arland, 27th edition from the United Bible Society, usually abbreviated as NA27), you would find footnotes on nearly every page showing you which of the extant manuscripts agree and which do not.  The King James Bible is based on a Greek text called the Textus Receptus, which is outdated, thanks to major archeological finds since the translation in 1611. 

What does all this mean?  Well, in this verse, the TR (Textus Receptus) uses the Greek word himeiromenoi but the NA27 uses the Greek word homeiromenoi.  Doesn’t look like much of a difference, does it?  The TR Greek means “to yearn after, to long for,” while the NA27 Greek means  “to have a kindly feeling.”  Perhaps it is only a small change in intensity.  The Greek word is found as the translation of the Hebrew hakah, but only in Job 3:21 (“waiting for death”).  This certainly cannot mean “fond affection,” since no one has a fond affection for death.  The translators of the TR recognized that the LXX took the word to mean “longing for,” and on that basis translated Paul’s phrase as “Longing over you.”  But things have changed since the King James translation.  This is complicated by the fact that this Greek word appears only once in the New Testament and is used only once in the LXX.  Hunting this one down is great detective work.

Now you’ll probably say, “What’s the point?  Who cares about such a tiny change?  If both words mean sort of the same thing, we can understand that idea without all these nit-picky details.”  You would be right.  We can understand the idea.  Translating the text so that we get the idea is the basis of a lot of current Bible translations.  These translations are not so concerned with the actual words.  They just want to communicate the message.  While this is a noble pursuit, it raises a serious issue.  Is the meaning of the text found in the text or is it found in the understanding of the reader?  Do I read the Bible in order to understand what the author of the passage had to say or do I read the Bible for what it means to me?  Is it OK to just get the idea or do I really need to know the exact details of the author’s statement?

These are very important questions principally because if I think that the reader is the focus of the translation, then I am free to change the language so that it has meaning for the reader.  I can ignore the details and even the vocabulary of the original author if the author’s choices don’t communicate to the reader.  I end up with a translation that doesn’t look like the original words at all.  Take The Message as an example.  While it is easy to read in contemporary vocabulary and ideas, it is impossible to work from The Message back to the original language.  The Message is Eugene Peterson’s personal vocabulary choices. 

Here’s the point.  Every translation has to deal with the details.  Every translation adopts some method for dealing with them.  But not every translation takes the same approach.  If you read the Bible in any language except Greek and Hebrew, you need to know how your translation approaches these issues.  Otherwise, you will be subject to the whims of the translator.  So, pick up your Bible and, perhaps for the first time, read the Introduction or the explanation of how the translation was done.  You just might be surprised.

Topical Index:  translations, Textus Receptus, Nestle-Arland 27, longing, affection, 1 Thessalonians 2:8

Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick Sullivan Jr. (Skip's Tech Geek)

From text to translation {seesmic_video:{“url_thumbnail”:{“value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/JrJTXjCv0g_th1.jpg”}”title”:{“value”:”From text to translation “}”videoUri”:{“value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/VTEbzyKIll”}}}

From page 200 of Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible by Paul D. Wagner (emphasis added by me)

Symmachus
It is generally agreed that Symmachus produced his Greek translation after Aguila and Theodotion had rendered theirs. References to him or his translation are noticeably absent from sources in the late second and early third centuries; thus he probably worked in the mid-third century shortly before Origen compiled the Hexapla.(43) Symmachus is said to have been and Ebionite by Eusebius and Jerome (44), the latter of whom claims that Symmachus excelled at expressing the sense of the Hebrew text rather than merely producing a literal rendering.(45). His elegant Greek style helped him prepare an idiomatic translation of the Masorectic Text that sometimes displays a degree of independence and originality. Unlike Theodotion’s translation, which is mainly a revision of an earlier Greek version, Symmachus appears to have prepared a fresh translation based upon these earlier works. Greenspoon describes his procedure as follows: “Symmachus generally preferred to supply his readers with translations (often, only guesses) for obscure or technical Hebrew terms that had remained untransliterated in earlier Greek versions.”(46) Jerome praised Symmachus for making his translation so intelligible–he was able to use it more than Aquila’s literal translation when working on the Vulgate.(47)

And if I’m not mistaken, the Vulgate was a primary source material for KJV in 1611.

So what did these authors REALLY say and what did they REALLY mean? Let’s stop pretending the Bible in the backseat is “infallible.”

Patrick Sullivan Jr. (Skip's Tech Geek)

From page 200 of Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible by Paul D. Wagner (emphasis added by me)

Symmachus
It is generally agreed that Symmachus produced his Greek translation after Aguila and Theodotion had rendered theirs. References to him or his translation are noticeably absent from sources in the late second and early third centuries; thus he probably worked in the mid-third century shortly before Origen compiled the Hexapla.(43) Symmachus is said to have been and Ebionite by Eusebius and Jerome (44), the latter of whom claims that Symmachus excelled at expressing the sense of the Hebrew text rather than merely producing a literal rendering.(45). His elegant Greek style helped him prepare an idiomatic translation of the Masorectic Text that sometimes displays a degree of independence and originality. Unlike Theodotion’s translation, which is mainly a revision of an earlier Greek version, Symmachus appears to have prepared a fresh translation based upon these earlier works. Greenspoon describes his procedure as follows: “Symmachus generally preferred to supply his readers with translations (often, only guesses) for obscure or technical Hebrew terms that had remained untransliterated in earlier Greek versions.”(46) Jerome praised Symmachus for making his translation so intelligible–he was able to use it more than Aquila’s literal translation when working on the Vulgate.(47)

And if I’m not mistaken, the Vulgate was a primary source material for KJV in 1611.

So what did these Jewish letter writers and historians REALLY mean? We’ll never know for sure, so I guess we’ll have to learn to be comfortable with a certain degree of ambiguity.

As for me, I no longer can say that the Bible in the backseat of my car is “infallible.” This can, and does, cause tension when discussing this history with other Christians; namely close friends and family. But I always keep in mind some of Skip’s best advice, “Do it with hugs.” =)

Patrick Sullivan Jr. (Skip's Tech Geek)

Btw Skip, that article about Textus Receptus that you linked to is really interesting…

The New Testament was inspired by God, and came from the pens of its writers or their amanuenses in infallible form, free from any defect of any sort, including scribal mistakes. However, God in His providence did not choose to protect that infallible original text from alterations and corruptions in the copying and printing process. Scribes and printers made both accidental (usually) and deliberate (occasionally) changes in the Greek text as they copied it. As a result, the surviving manuscript copies of the New Testament differ among themselves in numerous details.

Many attempts have been made (even as early as the second century A.D.) to sort through the manuscripts of the New Testament and weed out the errors and mistakes of copyists, in order to restore the text to its original apostolic form. Those who have made such attempts have differed one from another in the resources at their disposal, their own personal abilities as text editors, and the principles followed in trying to restore the original text of the New Testament.

Click here to read the rest.

CYndee

Not to be too simplistic, but I recently heard an expression that I think today’s article illustrates: “People either read what they believe or believe what they read in the Bible.” How’s that for short and sweet? 🙂

On a more serious note, I’m glad that the Holy Spirit is still guiding us into Truth today. He will make sure that we understand the lesson God has for us in the scriptures. For now, I’ll continue to abide in the Word and allow Jesus to transform me for His purpose and glory. My life is NOT about me–it’s about becoming like Him. I like the advice of “do it with hugs,” because that puts LOVE at the center of all we do.

(PS– Hey, Patrick, you are a natural on camera! Great to see your face here.)