Saturday, March 21, 2009
Mark Taylor, Mark Strauss, and I gave a presentation this afternoon at CBE in Dallas entitled, "So Many Translations: How Do I Choose?" I've posted a PDF of our notes here.
posted by Sean Harrison at 3:30 PM
Thanks for making your notes available.
Hi Sean
I sure wish I could have been there. Good outline for future reference. I was wondering about your KJV only period. What made you go that route, and what changed you mind?
Hi, Claudio,
I had a little background in textual criticism as an undergrad, so I knew some of the issues. When I went to grad school, I got tangled up with a KJV-only community. I read some of the literature arguing for that position and the related "Majority Text only" position, and was persuaded by the latter, at least, and began using the KJV exclusively for a few years.
Basically, the argument is that God must have preserved his word, and the Byzantine text tradition is where he did that, so we can trust the "majority text"/Textus Receptus. What I see now is that this argument assumes its conclusion and wraps that up in the clothing of faith. But it's not really faith, because faith has substance (Heb 11:1). It's more like wishful thinking.
What knocked me out of this perspective, finally, was reading Kurt & Barbara Aland's book, _The Text of the New Testament_. Through it I realized that there is a different way to answer the question of God's involvement in the preservation of his word, without engaging in wishful thinking. The Alands understood their work of textual scholarship as "recovering revelation," because they were helping to establish what is the original, inspired text of Scripture. They did their scholarship as an act of worship. That itself moved me. But I would put it this way: the preservation of the texts has been a human activity, not an inspired one, but one in which God has acted providentially nonetheless for the preservation of his word. One can say, "God has acted to preserve his word," and that statement can have real substance (and not just be wishful thinking). The history of the text is one that generates in me wonder and amazement. But that doesn't mean that I have to latch onto one particular textual tradition as the "right" or even "inspired" one, just because it dominated for a particular historical period.
There is an analogy between textual scholarship and Bible translation: No one should argue that any given Bible translation is "inspired" -- that would be arrogant on the part of the translators themselves and idolatrous on the part of others. It is right, instead, to say that Bible translation is a non-inspired human endeavor that, with the gracious aid (providence) of the Lord, results in a text that accurately and clearly represents the word of God in a different language from the ones in which it was originally written.
There is also an analogy with Christian traditions: Just because the Roman Catholic church was dominant in the west for hundreds of years, does not in itself mean that the Roman church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. The Spirit of God moves at different times in different ways. (I'm not trying to beat up on RC Christians here, I'm just making an example. But, FD: I'm an evangelical Protestant.)
Amen Sean! Thanks for sharing. I know what it is like to be tangled in KJV Only thinking. I must confess that at one point I was about 90% KVJ only and even attended a church led by a Peter Ruckman trained pastor! Two things, however, quickly led to my leaving this behind. First, the KJV issue was the main focus of the chruch. This issue was always the principle topic and in a sense the KJV was worshiped. Secondly, KJV onlyism is cultic, and like many cults, this one does not end with just the KJV being the only reliable Bible. Other ideas are thrown in, and if you know anything about Ruckman you can only imagine! I don't want to clog up the blog with the stories I could tell during my short time in this church. God opened my eyes. I still use the KJV on occasion and it's a beautiful translation. I agree with you..God did guide imperfect man and we have imperfect manuscripts, but His overall message has been perfectly transmitted in the thousands of manuscripts that exsist. The NLT, I believe, is an accurate representation of those texts and His message comes through perfectly. I do use several translations, but the NLT is my main Bible. If I could only use one of my many Bibles, it would be the NLT.
Brent Kercheville has posted a review of our talk at Christian Monthly Standard
The information presented in this post was somewhat beneficial. However, the HCSB continues to be viewed (and obviously taught) that it's a "baptist" or "southern baptist" bible. Here's a clip of an interview taken with the editor that attempts to answer this continued misunderstanding:
Will: Speaking of marketing, let me ask you just a few marketing questions. There seems to be a feeling at times that this is a Baptist translation.
Ed: Yes, there are a couple of things you probably want to clarify to people to help them. First of all Art was not a Baptist; he was Brethren. I’m not a Baptist; I’m a Presbyterian. So the General Editor in both cases was not a Baptist. The Southern Baptist contingent was maybe 1/3 of the translators. Also, you might remember that the Southern Baptists at 16 million members are by far the largest Protestant denomination. So if we worked on a numerical basis, we probably would have had more Southern Baptists. They are the largest of the seminaries as well, so there would be a lot more people to choose from.
Just wanted to share some food for thought.
Hi, Read the Word. Thanks for the clarification about the HCSB.
Hi Sean. Loved the three examples. Some of the most pithy I've seen on this issue. I wrote a short post repeating them.
Thanks, CD-Host. Credit for the three examples belongs to Mark Strauss and Mark Taylor.
Hey Sean, First let me say I got my NLT study Bible on the past Saturday, and I love it. Since you got tangeled up in the whole KJV only thing, I have a quistion for you. I have some family that I see every now and then who are KJV only. Is there anything I can say to them about why I'm not KJV only other then "I have a hard time reading the KJV"? I just want to get them off my back.
Some good info here. Thanks for posting it.
I think it's not often well understood that the Christian doctrine of inerrancy refers to the original documents, not to one particular translation.
(It's a common objection that comes not only from non-believers but also from some groups of believers.)
As we read any translation, we must still depend on the Spirit to illuminate His word in our hearts.
Thanks, keep it up.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home