Subject: Is Desiderata in the Bible? |
Bible Note: Dear Andrew, Thank you, again for this question. I believe I have discussed it in the forum before, but I can't seem to put my finger on it right now. Textual criticism is a very precise and public activity. It is the effort to insure that the Greek and Hebrew texts are as true to the original autographs as possible. Short of having the the original manuscript in hand, it involves a great deal of detective work. It tends to be very "scientific" in the sense that it involves the application of precise and obvious techniques. Translation, on the other hand, is the effort to render the resulting texts from Greek and Hebrew to some other language. It tends to be a bit more of an art, than textual criticism. Nevertheless, the two have one thing in common: they are done out in the open, following publicly expressed and articulated principles, yielding demonstrable results. One of the things that we as believers always find ourselves involved in, to one extent or another, is apologetics. When I suggested that we'd rather that such endeavors were as free from theological agenda as possible, I meant that we want everything out in the open, we want everything visible. Christianity is all about historicity. It is about eye-witness accounts. It is about things that "were not done in a corner." When many different people are involved, and their work is open to scrutiny and criticism, it precludes the possibility that it was done with a hidden agenda. Now, by these statements I am not saying that the principles by which translation takes place are not important. On the contrary, as you have pointed out, the belief in the verbal plenary inspiration of the word as it was originally written necessitates the kind of principles behind translations like the NASB and ESV. It also causes us to look askance at translations like the NIV, or paraphrases like the Open Bible. It also is evidenced by all the serious problems with things like the New World translation or the Jerusalem Bible or the Complete Jewish Bible. Even so, there issues of translation are quite difficult. Sometimes a translation is so good because it has been accepted for so long, influencing the vary language for which it was produced. The KJV was very well done, although by modern standards we might question the agenda of those who produced it. Nevertheless, we now have words in English that more accurately represent the intent of the original writers. One example comes to mind: the word heresy is used by Paul. A better modern English translation might be schism. At the time of the KJV translation, the word heresy did mean schism more than it does today. However, the meaning of the word heresy today more precisely exposes what Paul meant when he was writing. That is because of the careful, thorough, exposition of the Word by pastors and teachers over the years. It has actually changed our language! Consequently, the KJV becomes a better translation with time. Now, when a person exposits the Word of God, I believe that that is the time that their walk with the Lord comes most to bear. The same is true of the listener. If you want to read more about what I have had to say about Biblical interpretation, you might read my posts under thread #156916. In Him, Doc |