The Septuagint: A Snapshot

On August 19, 2024August 17, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Bibliology, Early Christianity, Hebrew Bible, Judaism, Second Temple Judaism, Septuagint, Theology, Translation

Among the various collections of Greek writings essential to understanding early Judaism and emerging Christianity is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, commonly called the Septuagint (LXX). What is this translation? Where did it come from? What sort of books were in it? In this piece I seek to provide a short snapshot of this ancient Bible translation, surveying the origin and contents of this corpus, noting its impact on Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament, and its role in Bible transmission will be an indispensable starting point for Bible students.

Origins

The traditional “origin story” of the Septuagint is told in the Letter to Aristeas, a self-described “narrative” recounting how the Jewish Law arrived in Alexandria, Egypt, and was translated into Greek by 70–72 Judean scribes during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (282–246 BCE).[1] This translation of the Law–and Greek translations of the rest of the Old Testament–is commonly called the Septuagint, for being the translation of the alleged seventy (abbreviated LXX).[2] The historical accuracy of the account in Aristeas is heavily questioned by scholars, but a mid-third century BCE dating and an Alexandrian setting for this translation is regarded as the most likely historical scenario.[3] Additionally, the origin of the Greek translations of the rest of the Old Testament is not well understood except that they were likely present by the first century.

Content

The LXX became the Bible for Jews living in the Hellenic world and the “first scriptures” for an emerging Christianity, but it must be remembered that the LXX was not a set corpus of books. According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch alone was translated into Greek. Later the LXX would include “all of the books of what [is called] the Hebrew Bible,” additional writings translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, and a body of Greek literature.[4] These additional books are called Apocryphal by Protestants and Deuterocanonical by Roman Catholics, 13 of these are typically found in collections together while the Greek Orthodox and Slavonic Bibles include others. The earliest “complete” Greek Christian Bibles from the fourth and fifth centuries CE (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus) do not include the same list of these books.[5] It is anachronistic, then, to treat the content of the LXX as a stable list of books that determined which books should be in the Bible.[6]

Influence

Nevertheless, its impact on Judaism and the New Testament is unmistakable. The LXX provided Greek-speaking Jews of the Hellenistic period with the word of God throughout the diaspora, but its reception was not without extremes. Some ancients (and some modern people) shared the belief, as suggested in Aristeas, that the LXX was inspired; meanwhile, other ancient believers were not persuaded and continued to produce editions of the LXX reflecting varying translation philosophies (Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus).[7] Early Christians, being Jewish, used the LXX as their “first Bible.” The New Testament books cite passages from the LXX, even revisions of passages, quotations from memory, or employ modifications.[8] As Christian use of the LXX went “mainstream” as their Bible, Bruce Metzger notes, “more and more Jews ceased using the Septuagint” by the end of the first century CE. As a result, the Greek translation became the “only source” in the church for access to the Old Testament.[9]

Textual Witness

The LXX tradition is a vital witness to our knowledge of the state of the transmission of the “original reading of the biblical text” of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.[10] The LXX tradition contributes to Old Testament textual criticism by giving insight into the “original” biblical manuscripts the LXX translators had in front of them which no longer exist today. The study of the LXX also helps to assess the habits of both translators and scribes.[11] Sometimes, for example, these translators and scribes changed a reading believed to be discrepant; other times, they “updated” the text to fit the context of their times. Still, modern study of the LXX in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls has underscored that its translators provided, “reliably and accurately reflect what lay before them.”[12]

Conclusion

The influence of the Septuagint in the history of the Second Temple Period and its career for early Christianity as the Bible of God’s people continues today regardless of whether it is perceived by the average Bible reader.

Endnotes

Benjamin G. Wright, III, “Aristeas, Letter of,” Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, eds. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010),376.
I will use LXX in this paper to refer to this Greek translation tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Edmon L. Gallagher, Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint (Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2021), 33–34.
Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Septuagint,” Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, eds. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1218.
On this point of what additional books were included, Lee Martin McDonald describes how in the early church there was a “lack of universal agreement on the scope of and order of the church’s OT canon, though by the fourth century there was broad but never universal agreement on the scope of church’s first scriptures [i.e., LXX],” in John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and Lee McDonald, Ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New Developments in Canon Controversy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2020),79.
Gallagher, Translation, 52–55. In Gallagher’s assessment, the LXX did not impact the development of the biblical canon, “The Septuagint had no bearing on the development of the canon of Scripture” (47).
Gallagher, Translation, 113–20.
Greenspoon, “Septuagint,” 1219.
Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, MI: Abaker Academic, 2001), 18.
Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, rev. ed., Lexham Methods Series, ed. Douglas Mangum (Bellingham: Lexham, 2018), 40–41.
Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 95. There is a movement within Old Testament textual criticism that has shifted from seeking the wording of the original manuscripts (i.e., the autographs) to seeking the earliest authoritative form of the text. This latter focus places the goal away from the original words of the text and emphasizes that from various versions one became the authoritative form.
Greenspoon, “Septuagint,” 1218–19.

Do We Have the Old Testament?

On May 3, 2023February 15, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn 2003, Bibliology, Christian Apologetics, College Papers, Freed-Hardeman University, Old Testament, Research Papers, Textual Criticism, Theology1 Comment

A person of faith often assumes that there are no problems ascertaining the wording of certain passages. But reality demonstrates that there are instances where this proves to be untrue. What a believer expects God to do in His providential care of the planet may not always line up with how life unfolds itself, but such disorientation has been common among the faithful.

Despite all the miracles employed to compel Pharoah to release the Israelites from Egypt, when the environment became less than comfortable fear and panic overcame God’s people (Exod 14). Even Moses had initial problems with understanding the situation he was faced with when he was sent to Pharoah to have him release the Israelites (Exod 5). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that a person of faith at times needs “more” in order to calm their nerves.

The following brief study gives attention to the textual basis of the Old Testament, considering a few lines of thought that contribute to a more informed outlook on how copies of the Hebrew Bible have been transmitted into modern hands, and what the sources of the copies used today so that translators are able to produce translations of the Hebrew Bible.

It must be emphasized that this is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject. So much more is available for analysis; be that as it may, a survey of this material is sufficient to adequately support the above affirmation of the adequate veracity of the Hebrew Bible.

A Skeptic’s Concern

A skeptical approach to the Bible essentially argues that for a collection of books so old, for a collection of books that have passed through so many hands, or for a collection of anonymously published volumes, it is a hard sell to affirm that the Bible – here the Hebrew Bible – is trustworthy in any sense.

Regarding the textual certainty of the Bible in general, skeptic Donald Morgan puts the matter bluntly in the following words:

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book that survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations were made to the originals by various copyists and editors.[1]

The argument basically affirms that there is no way for the Bible to be an accurate record of the words of God, and therefore, it is not “trustworthy.” The sheer force of this argument is designed to rob the Bible believer’s faith in God. Implicit with this is the futility of having a religion founded upon the Bible’s guidance.

What can be said of this dire depiction, except that one must not be persuaded by mere affirmations, but instead by the available evidence. Not only is it paramount to see the evidence, but it is imperative that a proper evaluation is given to it.

The OT Accurately Transmitted

The Scribal Evidence

The overall scribal evidence suggests that the Hebrew Bible has been adequately preserved. The “scribe” trade goes back very early in recorded antiquity and therefore is a field of has a rich heritage of scholarship and workmanship behind it.[2] J. W. Martin notes that the field of transmitting literature is a known trade skill from the 2nd millennium B.C. and observes, “men were being trained not merely as scribes, but as expert copyists.”[3] Copying occurred during the Babylonian exile. F. C. Grant writes, “in far-away Babylonia the study and codification, the copying and interpretation of the Sacred Law had steadily continued.”[4]

This means that extending back beyond the time of Abraham (19th century B.C.) and Moses (15th century B.C.), down to the time of the exilic and post-exilic scribes (the predecessors to the “scribes who copied and explained the Law in the New Testament times”),[5] “advanced” and “scrupulous” methods would likely be used to copy any text, including the Hebrew canon.

The next question in need of an answer, though, is: what were those methods? Briefly, observe the mentality and professionalism which exemplify the sheer reverential ethic towards the transmission of the Biblical text characterized by the scribes.

The Hebrew Scribes revered the sanctity of the Scriptures. Moses commanded the people not to “add to the word,” nor to “take from it” (Deut 4:2). The Hebrews respected this command. Josephus weighs in as support for this point. In arguing for the superiority of the Hebrew Bible against the conflicting mythologies of the Greeks fraught with evident contradicting alterations to their content, Josephus bases his argument upon the reverential mentality towards these writings.

Josephus testifies to this sense of reverence (Against Apion 1.8.41-42):

[41] It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; [42] and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them.[6]
William Whiston, Translator

Even though there are variants, produced by scribes, the fundamental historical truth stresses that the Hebrew scribes revered the Scriptures and dared never to add or take away from them. This important truth must not be forgotten. Moreover, this fact emphasizes the great care they had with the transmission of the text.

The scribal methods changed as time progressed, and this seems to be for the better and for the worst. One thing is transparent, however, and that is this: consistent with the reverential appreciation of the scriptures, the Hebrew scribes exercised acute professionalism in their methods, however superstitious they were at times. Rabbinic literature testifies to the early scribal school. Clyde Woods reproduces 17 crucial rabbinic rules demonstrating the rigors of the early scribal methodology.[7] The specifics concerning the writing materials, the preparation of the document, the veracity of the authenticity of the template, the conduct displayed when writing divine names, and other critical rules are thus enumerated underscoring the diligent professionalism of the early scribes.

The Masoretes succeeded and exceeded these scribes as a professional group of transmitters of the Hebrew Bible, laboring from A.D. 500 to A.D. 1000.[8] Lightfoot summarizes a number of procedures the Masoretes employed to “eliminate scribal slips of addition and omission.”[9] The Masoretes counted and located the number of “verses, words, and letters of each book,” thereby passing on the text that they have received. This intricate methodology in preservation is of extreme importance in modern textual studies,[10] and answers the reason why these reliable “medieval manuscripts” are commonly the underlying text of modern English translations[11] and represented in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (cf. English Standard Version).[12]

The concern for the accurate preservation of the Biblical text cannot, however, dismiss the fallible humanity which copied the text by hand, thereby producing inevitable scribal variations.[13] René Paché recounts the “herculean” endeavors of scholars evaluating the variants which have “crept into the manuscripts of the Scriptures” (e.g. B. Kennicott, Rossi, and J. H. Michaelis). These labors have also encompassed the analysis of the oldest versions and numerous citations and allusions from Jewish and Christian works. Robert D. Wilson’s observations in his work, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, noted that the 581 Hebrew manuscripts studied by Kennicott are composed of 280 million letters comprised of only 900,000 variants. These variants are boiled down to 150,000 because 750,000 are “insignificant changes” of letter switches.[14]

This is represented as 1 variant for every 316 letters, but putting these unimportant variants aside, the count stands at 1 variant for every 1,580 letters. Moreover, “very few variants occur in more than one of the 200-400 manuscripts of each book of the Old Testament.”[15] The point that needs recognition, however, is that we must recognize that the scribes have done their best, but there are variations that must be accounted for. These variations are not sufficient enough to call into question the adequate preservation of the Hebrew Bible.

Textual Evidence

After evaluating some of the problems in the textual evidence for the Old Testament, it can be said that the overall material adequately preserves the Hebrew Bible. This investigation is comparable to a roller coaster. There are both ups and downs, making one more confident while at the same time bringing some concern. For example, Peter Craigie notes, “there is no original copy of any Old Testament book; indeed, not even a single verse has survived in its original autograph. This is not a radical statement, simply a statement of fact.”[16]

The Bible believer might feel a bit disconcerted to know this fact, but there is no genuine need to feel this way. Truth endures because of its very nature no matter if one destroys the materials upon which it is written (Jer 36:23-32). Moreover, the scribal evidence adequately demonstrates an amazingly high level of accurate transmission and preservation of the Old Testament, even though the autographs are not available. One might speculate as to why these important documents are not providentially preserved for posterity, but the observation that such a course of action “is a highly dangerous procedure” is promptly recognized.[17]

Nevertheless, there are historical issues relating to this question and to the question of why there are such a small number of manuscript copies of the Old Testament when compared to the textual evidence of the New Testament. The most important fact is that the Hebrew scribes destroyed old manuscripts (autographs and copies). Clyde M. Woods writes:

The relative paucity [i.e. smallness of number] of earlier Hebrew manuscripts is due not only to the perishable nature of ancient writing materials (skins and papyri) and to the effort of hostile enemies to destroy the Hebrew Scriptures, but, perhaps more significantly, to the fact that the Jews evidently destroyed some worn out manuscripts to prevent their falling into profane hands.[18]

This explains why there is comparatively less textual witness for the Old Testament than for the New, however, as Donald Demaray notes, “there is the compensating factor that the Jews copied their Scriptures with greater care than did the Christians.”[19] There are accounts of scribes having burial ceremonies for the manuscripts,[20] and the storage “of scrolls [in a “Genizah” depository] no longer considered fit for use.”[21]

Cairo Genizah - Cambridge Library Blog - Fig1 — Image Credit: Cambridge University Library Special Collections. “Fragments from the Cairo Genizah prior to conservation and cataloguing [sic]” (Emma Nichols, “Conservation of the Lewis-Gibson Collection: Re-Treatment of Manuscript Fragments from the Cairo Genizah“)

A second major factor is the A.D. 303 declaration by Emperor Diocletian to destroy any “sacred” literature associated with the Christian religion.[22] F. C. Grant frames the significance as follows:

As never before, the motive of the Great Persecution which began in 303 was the total extirpation of Christianity: […]. The first of Diocletian’s edicts directed to this end prohibited all assemblies of Christians for purposes of worship, and commanded that their churches and sacred books should be destroyed.[23]

This would further contribute to the lack of Hebrew Bible manuscripts.

Modern manuscript evidence for the Hebrew Bible, therefore, does not include the autographa (“original manuscripts”) and is generally never expected to, as desirable as the obtainment of these documents is.[24] What remains is the collection of manuscripts which together allow textual scholars to reproduce as close as possible the Hebrew Old Testament. This body of textual evidence goes very far to close the gap between the present day and the autographa. What are these manuscript witnesses to the Hebrew Bible? There are primary and secondary witnesses but where space is limited to the manuscripts.

Bruce Waltke observes that the textual witnesses to the text are the extant Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew Vorlage obtained from the early versions of the Hebrew text.[25] While the term “manuscript” is typically recognized, the term Vorlage is probably unfamiliar to the general Bible student. This term refers to the text that “lies before” the translation or a theoretical “prototype or source document” from which it is based.[26] The Masoretic text (MT), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are the principal manuscript witnesses. These manuscripts coupled with the Vorlage are the “documents” at our disposal.

Craigie’s presentation on this material[27] when compared to Waltke leaves something to be desired, and that something is more data and deeper investigation. However, Craigie presents the evidence that the manuscript evidence (including early translations) extends from the 2nd century B.C to the MT of the late 9th century B.C.[28] Leaving a considerable gap, as he notes, of “several centuries, the time varying from one Old Testament book to another, between the earliest extant manuscripts and no longer existing original manuscripts.”[29]

Waltke presents a fuller presentation of the two substantiating Craigie’s observations and would extend from the available data that the Vorlage of some of the DSS and SP points to a Proto-MT at least somewhere in the 5th century B.C.[30] Moreover, the oldest evidence is found in 2 extremely small silver rolls containing the Aaronic priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24-26, dating to the 7th or 6th centuries B.C.[31] The text reads:

May Yahweh bless you and keep you;
May Yahweh cause his face to
Shine upon you and grant you
Peace
(Michael D. Coogan)

Consequently, the worst case holds that the textual evidence goes only to the 2nd century, while the best case goes back some 300-500 years further back to a purer source as of yet unavailable.

H. G. G. Herklots has compiled a generous amount of information concerning the production of harmonization work which underlies the works of present-day manuscripts.[32] By doing this Herklots highlights that there are variations in the textual witnesses that the early stewards of the text attempted to dispose of but this has in some sense complicated the matter, making the study more laborious than it already is.[33] Variations are not as problematic as the skeptic supposes. To be sure, there are occasions of serious textual dissonance, but these are far from the plethoras of insignificant, obvious, and correctable variations.[34]

Waltke affirms, that “90 percent of the text contains no variants,” and of the remnant “10 percent of textual variations, only a few percent are significant and warrant scrutiny; 95 percent of the OT is therefore textually sound.”[35] Douglas Stuart notes that when considering the variations, “it is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave the same impression with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative reading.”[36] The variations of the extant textual evidence hardly, therefore, pose an indomitable problem to the adequate preservation of the Old Testament. The skeptic’s argument has no leg to stand upon.

Extra-Hebrew Bible Sources

Besides the extant Biblical literature of the Hebrew Bible, there are miscellaneous sources that demonstrate the veracity of the text, and implicitly note the accountability of the Hebrew Bible to a textual investigation. While these witnesses cannot reproduce the entire Old Testament, they can be compared with the manuscript evidence for accuracy and enlightened evidence when certain passages or words appear obscure. Briefly, consider two sources.

First, the Targums are a set of Jewish works in Aramaic that are paraphrastic (i.e. “interpretive translation”) of parts of the Old Testament.[37] Targums are said to be used in the synagogue to give the Aramaic-speaking Jews the “sense” of the Hebrew Bible.[38] This is comparable to the verbal translation that had to occur at the inauguration of the Law under Ezra, where there were assistants who “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (Neh 8:8 ESV).

Targums have been written upon every section of the Hebrew Bible; they ranged from “very conservative” to “interpretive” (Onkelos and Jonathon respectively), and are useful for the light they show upon traditional Jewish interpretation.[39] In the history of the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, at times the Targum was placed along the side of a Hebrew text, a Greek text, and a Latin text (as in the Complutensian Polyglot) to “enable a reader with little Hebrew to understand the meaning of the Scriptures in his own language.”[40] It seems agreeable to suggest and affirm that the Targum serves as an appropriate and practical source to obtain a general understanding of the Hebrew text, which will definitely aid the textual scholar in analyzing obscure passages.

Second, there is the New Testament, which is a virtual galaxy of Old Testament citations and allusions as it connects Jesus and his followers as a continuation -fulfillment- of its message. Consequently, it serves as a proper witness to the passages cited or alluded to. E. E. Ellis writes:

there are some 250 express citations of the Old Testament in the New. If indirect or partial quotations and allusions are added, the total exceeds a thousand.[41]

The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Society, has 2 notable reference indexes. The first index lists the “Quotations” while the other catalogs “Allusions and Verbal Parallels.”[42]

The New Testament writers used and quoted not only the Hebrew Bible, but also the LXX (with some variations suggesting different Greek translations), and other sources such as the Old Testament Targums.[43] In addition, the New Testament, in terms of textual evidence (manuscript, early version, and patristic quotations), is the most attested document from antiquity[44] emphasizes the reliability of the New Testament evidence for the Old Testament.[45]

Concluding Thoughts

In summation, we have examined some of the evidence in a survey and observed that the typical skeptical claim against the Bible is fallacious. We are more than confident that the textual transmission of the Bible has adequately preserved the Bible. There are so many avenues from which data pours in that for all practical purposes the gap from these extant materials to the originals is irrelevant. Gaps of greater magnitude exist for other works of antiquity, but no finger of resistance is pressed against their adequate representation of the autographic materials.

The Bible experiences this sort of attack partly because ignorant friends of the Bible fighting with a broken sword affirm that we have the Bible and that it has no textual problems. Other times, skeptics misrepresent textual studies of the Bible in order to support their case that the Bible is not the inerrant inspired word of God. Be that as it may, the scribal evidence demands that the scribes held a high reverence and professionalism in the transmission of the text, the textual evidence is, though having some problems, near 100 percent sound. Moreover, the New Testament and Talmud are examples of sources that uphold the Biblical text and allow textual scholars to examine the accuracy of the textual data.

Finally, the skeptical attack has been viewed a considered only for it to be concluded that it is fallacious and of no need to be considered a viable position based on the evidence. In connection with this conclusion, observe some observations by Robert D. Wilson and Harry Rimmer. Rimmer writes that a scientific approach to the Bible inquiry is to adopt a hypothesis and then test it and see if there are supportive data that establishes it. He writes:

If the hypothesis cannot be established and if the facts will not fit in with its framework, we reject that hypothesis and proceed along the line of another theory. If facts sustain the hypothesis, it then ceases to be theory and becomes an established truth.[46]

Wilson makes a similar argument and ties an ethical demand to it. After ably refuting a critical argument against Daniel, Wilson remarks that when prominent critical scholars make egregious affirmations adequately shown to be so, “what dependence will you place on him when he steps beyond the bounds of knowledge into the dim regions of conjecture and fancy?.”[47]

Endnotes

Donald Morgan, “Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems,” Infidels Online (Accessed 2003). Mr. Morgan is just a classic example of the skepticism that many share regarding the integrity of the biblical record.
Daniel Arnaud, “Scribes and Literature,” NEA 63.4 (2000): 199.
J. W. Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” in The New Bible Dictionary, eds. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1254.
Fredrick C. Grant, Translating the Bible (Greenwich, CT: Seabury, 1961), 8 (emph. added).
Grant, Translating the Bible, 10-11.
Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987).
Clyde M. Woods, “Can we be Certain of the Text? – Old Testament,” in God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture (Kosciusko, MI: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 98.
Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1255; René Paché, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, trans. Helen I. Needham (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1969), 187.
Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 92.
Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 92.
Peter C. Craigie, The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986), 32.
English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), ix.
Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 91.
Robert D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, revised ed., Edward J. Young (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1967), .
ctd. in Paché, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, 189–90.
Craigie, The Old Testament, 34.
Dowell Flatt, “Can we be Certain of the Text? – New Testament,” in God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture (Kosciusko, MI: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 104: “The books of the New Testament were originally copied by amateurs,” the variants multiplied from persecution pressures and translations issues up until the “standardization of the text” in the 4th to 8th centuries A.D.
Woods, “Can we be Certain of the Text?,” 96.
Donald E. Demaray, Bible Study Sourcebook, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964), 35; Flatt, “Can we be Certain of the Text?,” 106.
Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 90.
Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1256-57; Paché, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, 187-88; F. C. Grant notes that the Synagogue of Old Cairo’s Geniza has been found, throwing “great light upon Biblical studies” (Translating the Bible, 40). Biblical scrolls were discovered from 1890 and, onwards including Targums and rabbinic literature (Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1256-57).
Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors: a Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C.–A.D. 476 (1985; repr., New York, NY: Barnes & Noble, 1997), 208.
Grant, Translating the Bible, 208.
Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 90.
Bruce K. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1994), 159-68.
Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2001), 128.
Craigie, The Old Testament, 32-37.
Craigie, The Old Testament, 36, 32.
Craigie, The Old Testament, 34.
Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 162.
Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 163.
H. G. G. Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us: Its Texts and Versions (New York, NY: Oxford University, 1957), 29-40, 109-23
Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us, 116-23, Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 164-167.
Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157.
Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157-58.
qtd. in Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157.
D. F. Payne, “Targums,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1238.
Payne, “Targums,” 1238.
Payne, “Targums,” 1239.
Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us, 35-36.
E. E. Ellis, “Quotations (in the New Testament),” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1071.
Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2002), 887-901.
Ellis, “Quotations (in the New Testament),” 1071.
Wayne Jackson, Fortify Your Faith In an Age of Doubt (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1974), 70-75.
Harry Rimmer, Internal Evidence of Inspiration, 7th edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), 36.
Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, 98.

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, et al. Editors. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2002.

Arnaud, Daniel. “Scribes and Literature.” NEA 63.4 (2000): 199.

Craigie, Peter C. The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986.

Demaray, Donald E. Bible Study Sourcebook. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964.

DeMoss, Matthew S. Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001.

Ellis, E. E. “Quotations (in the New Testament).” Page 1071 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Flatt, Dowell. “Can we be Certain of the Text? – New Testament.” Pages 103-10 in God’s Word for Today’s World: the Biblical Doctrine of Scripture. Don Jackson, Samuel Jones, Cecil May, Jr., and Donald R. Taylor. Kosciusko, MS: Magnolia Bible College, 1986.

Grant, Fredrick C. Translating the Bible. Greenwich, CT: Seabury, 1961.

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors: a Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C.–A.D. 476. 1985. Repr., New York, NY: Barnes, 1997.

Herklots, H. G. G. How Our Bible Came to Us: Its Texts and Versions. New York, NY: Oxford University, 1957.

Jackson, Wayne. Fortify Your Faith In an Age of Doubt. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1974.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible. 2d edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

Martin, W. J., et. al. “Texts and Versions.” Pages 1254-69 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Morgan, Donald. “Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems.” Infidels Online.

Paché, René. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture. Translated by Helen I. Needham. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1969.

Payne, D.F. “Targums.” Pages 1238-39 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Rimmer, Harry. Internal Evidence of Inspiration. 7th edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946.

Waltke, Bruce K. “Old Testament Textual Criticism.” Pages 156-86 in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation. Edited by David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1994.

Wilson, Robert D. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament. Revised edition. Revised by Edward J Young. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1967.

Woods, Clyde. “Can we be Certain of the Text? – Old Testament.” Pages 94-102 in God’s Word for Today’s World: the Biblical Doctrine of Scripture. Don Jackson, Samuel Jones, Cecil May, Jr., and Donald R. Taylor. Kosciusko, MS: Magnolia Bible College, 1986.

Church: A Preliminary Survey

On March 25, 2010October 6, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Book of Acts, Ecclesiology, Essays, General Letters, Gospel, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Peter's Letters, Revelation, Theology, Word Studies2 Comments

With so many “churches” in the religious world, people interested in visiting one are often sidelined by the inevitable question, “which church should I go to?” After all, there are as many “churches” as there are potential opinions on what a church should be like. But where should a person begin as they search for a church, should they simply jump out on a whim? Hardly.

Searching for a church should be a reverent endeavor, especially since in the New Testament the “church” is said to have been “purchased” by the very blood of Jesus Christ (Acts 20.28). Consequently, if the church was that important to Jesus and the Father, those seeking to “go to church” should realize this spiritual venture should not be taken lightly.

Where then might a person find the necessary perspective from which to begin this search? The relevant information is found in the New Testament documents, the documents which record the formative forces which began the church in the first place; moreover, the New Testament provides ample information about how people became members of the blood-bought church of Jesus, along with important church organizational references.

This piece is a primer, in a sense, on the nature of the church. There are many ways that this topic can be addressed. But, nevertheless, below are some relevant points to glean from the New Testament on the topic of the church of Christ (Rom. 16.16).

The New Testament Documents

In the New Testament, from the beginning to end, the thought and actual fact that the saved existed as a collective known as the “church” or body of Christ is clearly self-evident (Matt 16:18 and Eph 1:22, 23, 4:4; Acts 2:47). Consider a sample of the New Testament documents.

There are four accounts of the ministry of Jesus, they are called Gospels. The term “church” is found only in the Gospel of Matthew, particularly in chapters 16 and 18. In chapter 16, Jesus speaks of building His church – “my church” (16:18). He explains that death (Grk. hades – not hell, contra KJV) will be incapable of deterring his plans to bring His church into reality.[1] In chapter 18, verses 15-17 describe the disciplinarian process regarding a Christian brother living in sin, and hence, needing private correction. The final stage is to bring the sin to the public forum by telling it to the church, with the intention that it can act as a loving measure of leverage to pressure the brother to quit the sinful practice. Thus, in Matthew Jesus speaks of his church in two ways: (1) that it will be built (Matt 16:18), and (2) as the ultimate forum for maintaining moral purity among God’s people (Matt 18:15-17).

The Acts of the Apostles is the inspired historical account of the church – albeit a history with a theological focus. It is most definitely a primary source for the church, and therefore a logical document to examine in order to find the biblical church. To save space, consider what we find in only the first half of Acts (Acts 1-12). We find it was “the church”[2] that had become fearful after the Divine retribution against Ananias and Sapphira was administered by the Lord (Acts 5:11); the object of Saul of Tarsus’ brutal obsession was “the church” anywhere it assembled (Acts 8:1, 3; cf. Gal 1:13); it was “the church” at large in Samaria and Judea that enjoyed peace when the persecuting Saul became the believing Paul (Acts 9.31).

We find Barnabas and Paul (Saul) laboring in “the church,” particularly in Antioch of Syria,[3] and labeling the disciples (i.e. the individual members of the church) Christians (Acts 11:22, 26); several members of “the church” suffered persecution under the hand of King Herod (Acts 12:1, 5); “the church” in Antioch of Pisidia had prophets and inspired teachers, and sent Paul and Barnabas out to accomplish their first missionary call (Acts 13:1ff.); Paul and Barnabas had appointed elders in every “church” they established on their missionary labors (Acts 14:23), and upon their return to Antioch they recounted they travel to “the church” (Acts 14:27).

The largest sub-category of the New Testament documents is The Letter (also commonly styled, “epistle”) – 21 letters to be exact.[4] They are further divided by the prophets which God employed to pen them: Paul (13 letters), John (3), Peter (2), James (1), Jude (1), and the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebrews. This is a vast amount of literature to scan, but we can reflect on the following citations of “the church” among the letters and observe that “the church” is the redeemed body of Jesus believers. It goes without saying – at least it should be by students – that the New Testament Letters assume their audience is the redeemed body of Jesus disciples.

Ancient letter writing etiquette had the author’s name first and then the recipient’s name; thus, we read, “from me… to you.” When Paul wrote his letters, he often addressed the recipients with the nomenclature “saints” (cf. Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2). The term “saint” is the general description of all members of “the church” in the respect that they have been sanctified in baptism, and this sanctification continues in obedience shown by a holy life (Matt 26:28; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11-13; 1 John 1:6-7). The “saints” are members of the church viewed from the perspective of consecration. In fact, many times the letters begin like this: to the church with the saints.

Some appear to use Jewish terminology, like James and Peter, to describe the people of God. The letter of James is written to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1); meanwhile, the audience for the Letters of Peter (if to the same audience) is depicted in the following way: “To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1). However, in Peter’s second letter, he speaks of his audience as “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:1). It seems like the language applies the covenant aspect that biblical Israel had with God, and here it is applied in a new way to demonstrate that Peter’s audience is the new covenant people of God (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:13). These are members of the biblical church.

The Letter of Jude addresses his recipients with the nomenclature “called” and “beloved” (vs. 1). Their calling seems from the simple fact that they received their invitation (a clearer meaning of the term, kleitos translated “called”) to share the “common salvation”. Moreover, they received access to the love of God actuated in the redemption of their soul accomplished through Jesus Christ, thus, they are the beloved of God. What Jude emphasized that their identity was related to their Divine relationship through obedience to the Gospel. For our purposes, we are to understand that these “saints” and “beloved” ones are members of the New Testament church.

The First Letter of John, much like Hebrews, does not begin in the traditional letter format. Some describe them as tractates or some larger form of literary work sent as a letter. Nevertheless, John assumes a relationship – a fellowship between the apostolic circle, God, and themselves – that is based on obedient living and faithful confession of sin as they strive to live a disciplined life (1 John 1:1-10). They already are in this relationship, they are saved. Again, in Hebrews 2:1-4, the evidence is provided regarding the recipients. They are encouraged to remain vigilant, not neglecting their salvation which was shown to have a supernatural origin. Likewise, these recipients are members of the biblical church.

The last document in the New Testament is the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation. The document opens up with these words: “John to the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev 1:4). In the doxology, it is Jesus “who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (Rev 1:5-6). The audience, the churches, share salvation and the love of God, are part of a kingdom, and share involvement in the priesthood of God. The message of Revelation is the victory over the enemies of God as it is revealed in the inability of these satanic forces to prevent the faithful saints from entering the New Jerusalem, wherein lies the tree of life (Rev. 22.14). The brief but spiritually dense letters sent to the churches of Asia in Revelation 2 and 3 show among other things, the audience intended for the prophecies embedded into the fabric of this symbolic book. They assume that the recipients are already Christians, members of the church.

The picture should be clear that the New Testament is a collection of 27 books which speak to or about the church of Jesus Christ. Consequently, anyone looking for a church should reverently approach the prospect with the New Testament as the guiding source for determining what the church that God established should look like and be like.

The Church: A Brief Word Analysis

We may survey some of the information from the New Testament regarding the “church” and the redeemed which make up the “church”, but what does “church” mean? The term “church” is the most common, though unclear, translation for the New Testament Greek term ekklesia. Often times, “church” is thought of as solely “the building” in which a person congregates with others to worship God; however, ekklesia does not refer to a building – hence, “church” is an unclear translation if not misleading altogether. But the term is so commonplace that it need not be shelved; after all, even modern dictionaries have various nuances for the word “church.”

The English word “church” has a peculiar history that demands some attention. Hugo McCord (1911-2004) – professor, translator, and preacher – briefly summarizes the history of the word:

Historically, the English word “church” comes from the Middle English “cherche” or “chirche,” which is from the Anglo-Saxon “circe” or “cyrce,” which is from the German “Kirche,” which is from the Greek kuriakos, meaning “belonging to the Lord.” Webster says that the Greek word doma, “house,” has to be added to kuriakos to make the word “church,” that is, a “church” is “the Lord’s house.”[5]

McCord further observes that only twice does kuriakos – “the Lord’s” – appear in the New Testament (“the Lord’s supper” 1 Cor. 11.20; “the Lord’s day” Rev. 1.10), but in neither case is the phrase “the Lord’s house” ever employed.[6]

Basically, the etymology of the word translated “church” (ekklesia) derives itself from the adjoining of two words, ek and kaleo (ek-kaleo “call out”), into one verb originally “used for the summons to an army to assemble.” As a noun, ekklesia, denoted “the popular assembly of the full citizens of the polis, or Greek city state” (cf. Acts 19:32, 41).[7] This is, in a nutshell, the Greek background of the word beneath our religious word “church.”

Its existence in the Old Testament is due to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), ekklesia appears about one hundred times and is frequently employed to translate the Hebrew term qahal.[8] It is not so much the frequency to translate qahal which is intriguing; instead, it is the regularity of the context when ekklesia is employed which should attract contemplation. O’Brien writes:

Of particular significance are those instances of ekklesia (rendering qahal) which denote the congregation of Israel when it assembled to hear the Word of God on Mt. Sinai, or later on Mt. Zion where all Israel was required to assemble three times a year.[9]

Interestingly, the Hebrew writer similarly speaks of the redeemed in Hebrews 12:22-24. Thus, a raw translation of ekklesia may suggest the meaning to be, “the called out ones.”[10] In the biblical tradition, however, it seems better to emphasize that it carries the spiritual depiction of an assembly of God’s people prepared to hear and be led by His word in the covenantal sense.

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, recounts how Israel was an ekklesia during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness due to their rebellion and lack of faith (Acts 7:38). And it was during this time that they were taught how to depend upon the Lord. The beautiful and yet tragic relationship between the faithful God and his unbelieving nation is set forth clearly in Psalm 78 (cf. Hos 11:1-9). The Lord’s goal was to “shepherd” and “guide” them with his powerful word and through the demonstration of his presence.

With regards to the Lord’s church which Jesus promised to “build,” it is important that we consider these thoughts in our understanding of the kind of church Jesus was thinking of; as a consequence, it should guide our assessment of how “church” should behave. Individuals gathered together to hear and abide in his teaching, so that in it, they may be shepherded and guided (1 Tim 4:13). Meanwhile, leadership in the church (i.e. elders/shepherds) is to be “able to teach” and “manage” his household, and use these skills as he executes his God’s appointed office (Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 3:1-5). When the church considers this relationship and responsibility and embraces its challenge, we will be taking strong steps to finding a congregation of the Lord – a church of Christ.

Conclusion

We find in the New Testament a consciousness the early Christians held regarding the church. Jesus was to build his church, and after his death, the church began in Jerusalem and spread throughout the Roman world through Judea, Samaria, and to the furthermost extents of known Roman world (Acts 1.8ff). As the church expanded, the apostles and other inspired authors wrote to Christians regarding the ministry of Jesus and concerning Christian living.

Through these documents, important information is related to the nature of the church. Anyone searching for a “church” to attend should not settle for any church but should study the New Testament reverently identifying the nature of the church revealed in its pages.

When examining the English word “church” we find that we are not talking about a building, but instead, the emphasis should be placed upon an assembly of people. These individuals are assembled to hear the word of God, and make those Divine words translate into everyday action – everyday living. Only until we hear and practice the Word will we become the church (ekklesia) of Christ.

Endnotes

The King James Version (a.k.a. the A.V.) is quite misleading here, for the Greek text reads pulai hadou – literally, “the gates of hades.” The Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament (ALT) has the following descriptive rendering of the passage,”[the] gates of the realm of the dead [Gr., hades] will not prevail against it” (ATL Matt. 16.18).
Again we disagree with the A.V./KJV-Byzantine tradition in Acts 2.47, where the word “church” (ekklesia) is part of a variant reading of the text. Instead, we agree with others who find that the ending better reads epi to auto, a phrase often used to refer to the “Christian body” in a collective sense (Acts 1.15; 2.1, 47; 1 Cor 11.20; 14.23; Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. [Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001], 264-65).
Antioch of Syria is not to be confused with the Antioch of Pisidia in Asia Minor. BiblePlaces.com has good images of both Antioch of Syria (link) and of Pisidia (Link).
Technically, there are a few more letters in the New Testament record, but each is embedded in other books. For example, the book of Acts has two letters (a) 15.22-29, and (b) 23.23-30; and, the book of Revelation has seven letters to the church of Asia (Rev. 1-3).
Hugo McCord, The Everlasting Gospel: Plus Genesis, Psalms, and Proverbs, 4th ed. (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2000), 696. This edition is known also as FHV4.
McCord, The Everlasting Gospel, 696.
Peter T. O’Brien, “Church,” DPHL, 123.
O’Brien, “Church,” 124; TDNT 3:527; BDAG, 303.
O’Brien, “Church,” 124.
Etymologically, ekklesia does suggest that individuals were “called out” from their lifestyles by the Gospel (2 Thess 2:14). There is obviously a separation that occurs (2 Cor 6:17, 1 John 2:15-17). These etymological considerations corroborate with New Testament teaching on the church. However, the word has a richer heritage as is seen in its Old Testament use of the Greek language. These aspects must be appreciated in balance with each other.

The Translation Issue… Some Perspectives

On December 18, 2008June 18, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn New Testament, Perspective, Translation5 Comments

The modern Bible student must come to grips with the proliferation of Bible translations. Proliferation is a strong word. It suggests the idea that something is numerically multiplying (i.e. spreading) at a rapid rate. The 20th Century bore witness to the birth of several hundred translations of the Bible, dispersed throughout several languages and dialects.

For example, in 1965 John Reumann stated that the Bible had been translated into 1,215 languages and dialects in various testament formats (i.e. complete Bible, NT only, etc.). He goes on to describe the Bible as the most frequently translated book in the world.[1] Later in 1971, during the International Biblical-Pastoral Seminar at Rocca di Papa, Eugene A. Nida announced that 97 percent of the world’s languages had “some portion” of translated biblical text published, with ongoing translation endeavors occurring among 80 percent of the world’s languages.[2]

More recently, in 2001, Bruce M. Metzger observed that the American Bible Society’s registration for 2000 recorded that the new millennium opened with about 1,018 more translations in various formats and languages and dialects than in 1965.[3] Moving from these raw facts, it is obvious that there is abundant availability of some and even most of the entire Bible for every major language in the world.

Even within the English-speaking world, there is a large selection of Bible translations to choose from. The modern English reading Bible student must evaluate several factors when selecting a Bible translation; in other words, as Jack P. Lewis observes, a person must become aware of the issues involved and determine “what set of problems one prefers to live with.”[4]

I find Lewis’ observation to be one of the most important decisions a person can make in choosing which translation a person will use or not use. For no translation is perfect, and it would be foolhardy to press for a perfect translation. Because of this imperfection, one must consequently acknowledge the benefits and deficiencies in the translation of their choice, and learn to account for them in their studies.

The following piece is a consideration of a few problems or issues a person should at least be aware of when choosing or using a Bible translation. The treatment is brief, but we pray it to be helpful.

What is a Translation?

We embark upon this study with the following question, “what is a translation?” The verbal form “translate” comes from the Latin term translatus, it being the past participle of transferre, meaning, “to transfer.”[5] When speaking of literature, a translation is the result of scholarly work to transfer word thoughts from one language to another. It answers the question, “How would we say that in our language and culture?”

The work to be translated is called the source language, and the language the translation is being brought into is regarded as the receptor language. Essentially, a translation provides access to inaccessible documents – due to a language barrier (source) – by communicating them in the language and dialect of its new reader (receptor). This is the basic idea of a translation.

This would lead us then to consider what a translation is not. A translation is not an absolute and perfect reproduction of the original document; instead, there are certain limitations that preclude this from being completely possible. D. A. Carson makes this exact point in the following quotation:

Anyone who knows two or more modern languages well recognizes how difficult it is to translate material from one to the other in such a way that the material sounds as natural in the receptor language as it does in the donor language, and with the meaning and nuances preserved intact.[6]

To translate may be a difficult task, but the goal of every translator is to “retain as far as possible the characteristic qualities of the ancient writer […] or the best part of him will be lost to the English reader,” affirms Dr. Benjamin Jowett, translator of the Dialogues of Plato.[7]

It is this fundamental limitation to express everything in its plenitude that makes the endeavor to translate anything particularly frustrating. Despite the great labor and scholarly attention given to the task of translating, we still remain with a secondary source that reflects the essential drift of the original source.

The translation of the Bible should never be confused as the original Bible itself. Although a translation provides access to a foreign work by making it understandable, it is always subject to improvement due to limitations on transferring one language into another.[8]

Traduttore Traditore – “Translator, Traitor”

John H. P. Reumann explains in his work, The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, the precarious position the translator is in by use of an Italian proverb, traduttore traditore – “translator, traitor.” Meaning, “the translator seldom brings across the sense fully and precisely and thus betrays his author.”[9] In other words, there will always be a certain level of depth that the original author’s work retains as its own possession, that the translation does not.

The translator is under the tremendous burden to present an intelligible translation that is accurate, understandable, and with the needed readability for its intended new audience. This tension has been long recognized; in fact, an ancient rabbi once said, “He lies who renders a verse as it reads with literalness, he blasphemes who makes additions.”[10] May we call this “The Strait of the Translator”?

Yet, while we have only considered the “genuine” betrayal by the translator above, there are times when dishonest betrayal is the result of theological, philosophical, and other external forces at work in the translator’s life. For example, in the various English New Testaments, the Greek term baptizo is frequently mistranslated – for which there is no excuse. In fact, it is not translated, for in most cases it is transliterated instead of being translated.

Here a differentiation must be made between transliteration and translation. A translation grants access to a linguistically foreign work by rendering it into the new audience’s language and dialect. Instead of rendering a foreign word with a word that more or less corresponds to it in the new language, a transliteration composes a word by finding corresponding letters that sound the same. Hence, a new word is often created in the new language and translation has not occurred – misleading or confusing the new audience.

Case in point, as soon as we introduced the term baptizo it is highly likely that the term baptism came to mind – based upon sheer phonetical resemblance (i.e. they sound the same). This is the goal of transliteration, to create this resemblance. However, the English word baptism is a rather generic term for an initiation ceremony for entrance into the Christian religion “marked by the symbolic use of water.”[11]The world of Christendom offered three forms – modes – of baptism: sprinkling, pouring, or dipping. This is hardly what the term baptizo meant when inspired authors employed this term.

Without providing an exhaustive analysis of this Greek term, we submit a few lines of thought. First, baptizo is part of a group of New Testament terms that share a common root (baptid-) – hence they share some similarities in meaning. Second, quite literally the term meant submerging, washing, dipping, and cleaning with water, and could also be used metaphorically for an overwhelming experience.[12]

Third, baptizo “was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests”[13]; hence, baptism creates an artificially technical meaning that is not exclusively there in baptizo. Finally, when employed in connection with salvation, baptizo has a singular application – immersion. In 1896, Joseph Thayer explained that in the New Testament baptizo is used particularly for “the rite of sacred ablution”; in other words, “an immersion in water” for the forgiveness of sin (cf. Acts 2:38).[14] The Christian community would do well to affirm the singular biblical model of Christian “baptism” as revealed in the New Testament – immersion in water.

As a side note, we would like to point out that transliteration is not to be viewed suspiciously, for it is a common feature in translations done for names, places, and certain situations of direct address. For example, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul is a transliterated phrase for apostolos Paulos (Gal 1:1). Likewise, in Luke 2:4, Joseph travels from Nazareth, Galilee, to Bethlehem, Judea. All of these names are transliterations from Greek expressions.

An interesting situation occurs in Matthew 27:46 at the cross, where Jesus shouts loudly, “Eli, Eli, lema, sabakthani?” Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but Luke wrote in Greek. Luke transliterates Aramaic into Greek for his readers (and then translates its meaning). Humorously, English translators must then transliterate Luke’s Greek transliteration into English, and then translate Luke’s translation into English as well. These examples are set forth to show the genuine need to transliterate phrases or words – it is all part of the process.

The Need for Bible Translation

The Bible did not drop out of heaven in its present prepackaged format. Quite to the contrary, it is an anthology (i.e. collection of writings) produced over a span of some 1500 years by authors from various socio-economic backgrounds and linguistic heritages.

The overwhelming majority of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (i.e. Classical Hebrew), though various portions are found composed in Aramaic (Dan 2:4b–7:28; Ezra 4:8–6:18, 7:12–26). Both languages are regarded as Northwestern Semitic languages along the Mediterranean Sea.[15] The documents of the New Testament are composed in Koine Greek, the third stage of the evolution of the Greek language “born out of the conquests of Alexander the Great.”[16]

Internal biblical evidence demonstrates that even the Israelites had a need for translation. In Nehemiah 8:1-8 it chronicles that at the reading of the Law, during post-exilic times, there were some people “who could understand what they heard” (8:2-3), while there were others who needed assistance to understand the reading by selected individuals ready to give the “sense” of the Law (8:7-8). At some point during exile in Babylon, the Israelites became more comfortable with Aramaic than Hebrew, becoming heavily reliant upon Aramaic interpretations (Targums) – oral and written.[17]

According to The Letter of Aristeas, a Greek translation of the Pentateuch was commissioned by Egyptian royal decree for housing in the famed library in Alexandria, Egypt, for academic purposes. The events detailed are to have taken place somewhere between 278 and 270 B.C. of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ reign as king of Egypt. Though scholarship is divided over the authenticity of the letter in its exact chronology of the origin of the LXX, an Alexandrian origin story is most likely.[18] It is clear that the Greek Old Testament was a much-needed resource for Hellenistic Jews scattered throughout the Mediterranean world.

The early church translated the various portions of the New Testament books, if not all, into various ancient languages in order to pass on the message of the gospel to the entire world. Without recounting all of these ancient translations, it is sufficient to say that they represent a wide geographic dispersion throughout the Roman Empire at the earliest of times in the movement.[19] The missionary imperative set forth by Jesus in Matthew 28.19–20 implies the reason why we translate the Bible – God’s revelation to humankind; consequently, it makes perfect sense why there are ancient translations intended chiefly for Christian use.

The Value of a Fresh Translation

Where the previous section addresses the basic need for a translation of the Bible to exist, this next line of reasoning focuses on the need of producing new translations. In the history of Bible translations in English alone, books are profusely available. We only submit a view of thoughts to help the curious reader make some sense of the situation the student of the English Bible faces today.

In the late 1500s AD, the English-speaking people had access to what we call the Geneva Bible. It was considered by many to be the most accurate translation of its time, and yet today one could scarcely find a copy of it in church pews. Why? In short, the arrival of the King James Bible displaced it, but it was largely a revision of the English Bibles of its time.

In the late 1800’s AD, the English Revised Version appeared (ERV), along with its American counterpart – American Standard Version (ASV). The ASV was thought to be vastly superior to anything then available because its textual basis for translations was so strong, but it failed to successfully replace the King James Version as the popular version of the Bible. Why?

We would run the risk of oversimplification if we did not admit at the beginning, that the popularity of translation used is the result of a confluence of several factors. But the main factor, it seems, in the popularity of any translation is that it speaks clearly and essentially to the people that will pour hours of attention to its pages (its contemporary readership). Two traits are essential then: it must be easy to read, and easy to be understood.

For these principles to be met in a Bible translation, a fresh translation based on the original languages must appear from time to time. Bible translations are therefore temporary things – and should there be doubt, the reader is encouraged to study the history of the Bible in the English language.

Biblical scholar and translator, Fredrick C. Grant, made this exact point:

If a translation is to be any good, it must be addressed to the times in which it is written. One reason why the Revised Version of 1881-85 failed and along with it the American Standard Edition of the Revised Version of 1901, was that it did not address the world in which men lived.[20]

They retained archaic expressions that by reason of language evolution had either gained new meaning(s) or had been abandoned by the contemporary vernacular. For example, notice the case of 1 Corinthians 16:13:

Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. (King James Version 1611)

Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. (American Standard Version 1901)

What is the possible meaning of the phrase “quit you like men”? The phrase comes from one Greek expression: andrizesthe, from andrizo. Appearing only once in the New Testament, it means “to play the man” (link). According to the papyri, instances of this term stress the firmness and courageous strengths inhering in masculinity which faces the world with forces that must be overcome.[21]

When compared with a translation produced one century later, the need for improvements over the ASV (1901) and its predecessors is clearly seen and required. The English Standard translation of the Holy Bible (ESV) renders andrizo, as follows:

"Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men [andrizesthe], be strong." (English Standard Version, 2001)

The meaning of this passage is, therefore, obvious after careful analysis of the Greek expression. In balance with some of the leadership problems in Corinth, it appears to be a closing general exhortation (so the force of the imperative suggests) whereby Paul challenges “the men to assume their God-given responsibilities and to assume the leadership in the church and in their homes.”[22]

To be sure, this is just one case out of many which could be easily demonstrated as test cases for the need of new translations.

Translation Philosophy Employed

In speaking about a philosophy of Bible translation, I think there is much to commend what Eugene Nida[23] wrote regarding translating the New Testament:

People have finally recognized that the professor and the gardener can communicate one with the other through the so-called “overlap” language which may be equally understandable and acceptable to both the learned and those with limited education. Producing translations in such a common form of speech is completely in the tradition of the New Testament, which was written in Koine Greek.[24]

Nida’s main point is to communicate a biblical translation in a vernacular that is accessible to all walks of life. Little wonder what the Bible says about Jesus and his teaching, “the masses heard him gladly” (Mark 12:37). One of the great strengths of Martin Luther’s work in the Reformation was to produce a translation of the Bible in the language of the German people. They had been forbidden access to the Bible in their own language, so access to the Bible and Luther’s plea for a return to the Bible was readily received.

More critically, there are two main philosophies in Bible translation.[25] When selecting a translation most conservative Bible students are concerned with a “word-for-word” translation. By use of this expression, the philosophy of formal equivalence is made reference. At the other side of the translation pool, is what may be called a “phrase by phrase” translation, formally called dynamic equivalence.[26]

What separates these two translation methods is how they achieve their goal: “how does one best communicate the text in translation?” Robert Martin contrasts formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence in the following way:

[F]ormal equivalence translators answer that the content of the original is best communicated when the translator consistently tries to parallel closely the linguistic form (i.e. structure, grammar, and exact wording) of the original. Dynamic equivalence translators, on the other hand, answer that the best way is to use the most natural form of the language of the reader (i.e., giving priority to the structure, grammar, and idiomatic expressions of contemporary English), whether or not this closely parallels the linguistic form of the original text.[27]

From a student’s perspective, a formal equivalent translation may be a bit harder to read, but it allows the reader to approach an essentially unbiased text to read and study the Scripture for themselves. Meanwhile, a dynamic equivalent translation will usually have a text that is a lot easier and clearer to read and study, but the reader is provided with a text that is highly interpretive.[28]

To be clear, each philosophy has its limitations, and cannot solve by themselves every translation hurdle a translator comes across. It must be understood, as Martin points out, that “every translation of the Bible is a mixture of formal and dynamic elements.”[29] Formal equivalent translations make exceptions to incorporate dynamic elements out of the necessity to render difficult passages; whereas, dynamic equivalent translations must have a formal relationship to the original text, otherwise it would not qualify as a translation.[30]

We believe that a balanced translation philosophy is that a translation needs to be as literal as possible, but free when necessary.[31] We conclude this section with the following words:

The translator must strive, therefore, to stay as close to the original as he can, so as not to lose those subtle messages reflected in tense, voice, mood, etc. This is certainly the ideal, where no clarity of message is sacrificed.[32]

Conclusion

We are not attempting to plead on behalf of one translation over another. No version has cornered the market, because sooner or later, the translation will be replaced by a more modern one that speaks in the language of its contemporaries.

No doubt some might find this study incomplete, and yes to some extent it is. However, the main goal here is to emphasize the need to be aware of some of the common issues one must be aware of.

Criticisms against this translation or that translation in order to elevate a pet Bible version have no place in the question of choosing a version. In all cases, we must decide what issues we are willing to live with when we select a translation, for none are perfect – no not one.[33]

Let us, therefore, find a translation that fits our particular study patterns and that compels us to focus on the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:8). For it is through study, learning, and obedience that we gain access to the Father (John 6:44–45).

Endnotes

John H. P. Reumann, The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars: Chapters in the History of Bible Transmission and Translation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965), 1.
Eugene A. Nida, “Bible Translating in Today’s World,” The Bible is For All, ed. Joseph Rhymer (London: Collins, 1973), 55.
Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 9-10.
Jack P. Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked About Bible Translations (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 1991), 55. Lewis essentially argues that since there is no perfect translation and when a person settles upon using a certain translation they are, therefore, accepting to interact with the decisions the translation committee made in transferring the ancient and biblical languages into a modern rendition in the language of the reader.
American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition.
Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 85.
Frederick C. Grant, Translating the Bible (Greenwich, CT: Seabury Press, 1961), 136ff.
Reumann, Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, 7.
Reumann, Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, 6.
Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked, 8.
American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition.
William E. Vine, et al., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1986), 2:50.
Walter Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 164. Now referenced as BDAG.
Joseph H. Thayer, et al., Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 94.
Allen P. Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 13-15.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 15.
Metzger, Bible in Translation, 20-24.
Reumann, Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, 8; Everett F. Harrison summarizes the issue as follows: “Though the Letter of Aristeas ascribes the translation of the Law to the royal interest in literature, it is clear from the Letter itself, […] that the real inspiration for the version sprang from the need of the Jews in Alexandria for the Scriptures in their adopted language” (“The Importance of the Septuagint for Biblical Studies — Part I,” BSac 112 [1955], 345). Likewise, Charles K. Barrett writes in his, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (New York, NY: Harper, 1961), that the Aristeas tradition is “almost certainly false, although here and there it shows glimpses of what appears to be the truth” (208).
Metzger, Bible in Translation, 25-51.
Grant, Translating the Bible, 133-34.
James H. Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (1930; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 40. BDAG 76.
Bob Deffinbaugh, “Paul’s Closing Words (1 Cor. 16),” Bible.org .
This is not a wholesale endorsement of “all things” Nida, but the ideal translation Nida speaks of is quite desirous.
Nida, “Bible Translating in Today’s World,” 58.
To be sure, there are other assumptions or philosophies that filter into the two main translation models practiced among translators (feminist, gender-neutral, ethno-centric, etc), but formal and dynamic translation are the two most basic issues.
Daniel B. Wallace, “Why So Many Versions?,” Bible.org , pars. 30-39. Wallace discusses the objectives of each philosophy and flavors his discussion of them with a critique of the “positives” and “negatives” of each translation methodology.
Robert P. Martin, Accuracy of Translation (1989; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 7; emphasis added.
Wallace writes, “A formal equivalence translation lets the reader interpret for himself. But too often, the average reader doesn’t have the background or the tools to interpret accurately. The net result is that he often badly misunderstands the text. On the other hand, a dynamic equivalence translation is usually clear and quite understandable. But if the translators missed the point of the original–either intentionally or unintentionally–they will be communicating an idea foreign to the biblical text” (“Why So Many Versions?,” pars. 37-38 – emphasis added).
Martin, Accuracy of Translation, 9.
Martin, Accuracy of Translation, 9-10.
My Greek professor, Dr. Clyde M. Woods used to state to us this principle, that a translation should always be as literal as possible, but free when necessary – i.e. when the translation is so awkward that a literal rendering would be unclear or misleading a reasonable non-literal rendering must be provided.
Wayne Jackson, The Bible Translation Controversy, 2d ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2002), 10. I highly recommend this little book. It is “ounce for ounce” the most succinct and balanced presentation I have found.
“No version has appeared (old or new) which is above someone’s objecting to some of its renderings, it is quite conceivable that one might say, ‘I choose the reliability of a certain version.’ Even if out of all the passages in the book someone can come up with a few places where the version does not pass his shibboleth, it does not disqualify the whole. One need not deny that the problem exists. In fact, there is no excuse for anyone’s covering over any mistranslation that exists in any version” (Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked, 58).