This episode contends that believers should abandon an "all-or-nothing" approach to the reliability of translations of the Bible. As stated in the previous episode, the large number of textual variants is a natural bi-product of the more than 5,500 copies of the New Testament. Since most of the textual variants don't affect meaning (spelling, word-order, etc.), Christians can be confident that English translations of the Greek and Hebrew text are 99.9% faithful to the original autograph. Some are concerned that admission of doubt over the translation of ANY text places one on the slippery slope of skepticism leading to a shipwrecked faith. Miles Smith, one of the translators of the KJV, insisted in the preface that doubt was preferable to dogmatic claims of certainty where the meaning of a text was uncertain. "It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertain." He acknowledges some room for doubt about the appropriate translation of a few passages, and this posture is preferable to unfounded confidence where "things are uncertain." He nevertheless affirmed the reliability of the KJV in the vast majority of translations, whose renderings amounted to "rubbing and polishing." The episode warns against unhealthy skepticism that quibbles over total certainty where compelling evidence is everywhere. Mark Twain remarked, "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it's the parts that I do understand."
Textual Criticism: the Good, Bad, and Ugly
This episode initially describes the legitimate use of textual criticism, but then focuses on its abuse by skeptics like Bart Ehrman. Textual criticism simply refers to the science of approximating the original autograph based on analyses of numerous manuscript copies. The vast majority of textual variants don't affect meaning at all (see last episode). And since proponents of the Majority Text and textual criticism AGREE on 99.9% of text of the New Testament, "approximating the original autograph" only deals with one-thousandth of the text, and then only a tiny portion requires "approximating the original autograph" where the meaning differs significantly from other copies. Again, most textual variants don't affect meaning. The episode contains my testimony and initial negative encounter with textual criticism done from skeptical critics like Bart Ehrman, who typically exaggerate the significance of large numbers of textual variants, without differentiating between meaningful variants (very few) and insignificant variants like spelling, word order or inclusion/absence of the definite article. Dan Wallace at D.T.S notes that there are a 100 possible variations of "John loves Mary" in Greek. Coupled with the large number of copies of the New Testament (5,500+), the large number of insignificant variants is understandable and expected. The abuse of textual criticism by disingenuous critics is downright ugly, as the agenda is less informed by manuscript evidence as it is by pre-existing anti-supernatural bias.
What about “Textual Variants?”
This episode mostly addresses the issue of textual variants. The reason why Critical Text theorists insists on an "older is better" approach to manuscripts is that less chance exists of a copying error occurring when a manuscript is older, closer to the original autograph. Copying over the last 1,900 years has in fact led a large number of textual variants. A textual variant is a difference in wording between 2 or more texts. While this fact alone might cast doubt over transmission of the original autograph, as critics like Bart Ehrman point out, a "textual variant" includes numerous differences that don't change the meaning at all, especially spelling variants, inclusion or absence of the definite article, word order differences, and transposition of words. The vast majority of textual variants don't alter meaning AT ALL. None exists that would alter any central tenet of the Christian faith. Future episodes address the very few substantive variants.
The Majority Text vs. the Critical Text
This episode marks a major shift in the discussion over Bible translations: most modern translations of the Bible reject the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) in favor of the Critical Text. The Majority Text approach established the underlying Greek Text based on the majority of manuscripts, regardless of age. Critical Text proponents reject establishing the text based purely on "majority rule," and instead maintain that newly discovered OLDER manuscripts should carry more weight in establishing the Greek text than the simple majority. The Critical Text therefore incorporates new manuscript evidence when determining the basic text from which to translate into English. The dispute then between TR proponents and Critical Text adherents can simplistically be stated as "majority rule" vs. "older is better." The argument mirrors the early 20th century dispute between fundamentalism and modernity. The episode contends that "modernity" (the discovery of new manuscript evidence) need not be rejected, but should rather be integrated in establishing the underlying text upon which translators depend.
Translation: the Art of “Rubbing and Polishing”
This episode addresses the challenges of translation, with the acknowledgment by Miles Smith that no translation is perfect. Miles Smith, writing in the preface of the KJV, described the final work as having "some imperfections and blemishes" as a result of the fallible process of translation. This acknowledgment however shouldn't be overstated: the goal of new translations is to make good translations even better. "Rubbing and polishing," Smith declared, are the ongoing tasks of translators. The episode describes the challenges of translating "hapax legomenon," words that are only found once in the Old or New Testaments. Even though comparison with other places in the Scripture that use a word is not an option, translators can consult the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and note how third century Hebrew scholars rendered the Word of God in Greek. The much larger vocabulary of Greek allowed the translators of the Septuagint to select words that illuminate the translation of hapax legemenoi. Regarding the New Testament, translators can rely now rely on the trove of contemporary correspondences in koine Greek to help translate extremely rare New Testament words.
The Translators of the KJV, where Scholarship Meets Piety
This episode focuses on the translators themselves, all of whom excelled both in scholarship and piety. Andrew Lancelot spoke 15 languages, was called the "Interpreter 'General of the Tower of Babel, AND he prayed 5 hours a day. The committee that produced the KJV was very likely the most qualified and holistically balanced group of translators ever to translate the Bible. The translators didn't just know Greek and Hebrew--they spoke it. Regarding the final product, the translators considered how their work sounded to its hearers, many of whom were illiterate. The KJV is consequently a faithful and poetic translation that drips with the majesty of God. The episode closes with a call to all Christians to draw on the piety and scholarship of devoted well-rounded saints in history who lived what they learned.
“Hear the VOICE, and glorify..with your voice”
This episode highlights the imperative of Psalm 29:1-2, contending that Christians incorporate its mandate as an objective of holistic salvation. "Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory due His name." The New Testament version of this imperative is 1 Peter 2:9, where believers are called to "declare God's excellencies." Glorifying God is therefore a principal objective of the Christian faith. Psalm 29:3-9 implicitly suggests the means of glorifying God. The resounding theme is the overwhelming "voice of the Lord" governing storms. The description culminates with the almost out-of-place comment that "in His temple everything says, 'Glory!'" The logic of the psalm is therefore the following: 1) Believers acknowledge the imperative of human existence, to glorify God, 2) Believers attune themselves to the sovereign VOICE of God, 3) Believers respond with their VOICE, crying out Glory. Christian salvation largely follows this pattern. Christians seek to glorify God by submitting to Christ. They abide in Christ, attending to His sovereign voice, bearing fruit as they verbally declare God's excellencies. The latter part of the episode emphasizes the imperative in the "shema," "HEAR oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." This basic axiom of Judaism is more than a confession of monotheism: the emphasis is on the response of believers who are called to hear and obey the VOICE of God. Interestingly, Jews often referred to God as "hashem" or "the name." So with respect to the imperative of Psalm 29:1-2, Christians are called to glorify Christ by eagerly LISTENING to His Voice, glorifying His name in response. It is, after all, the NAME of the entire trinity in which all Christians are baptized, and the basis for glorifying God.
The KJV: Just the Bible, Ditch the Commentary
This episode initially addresses the challenge of literal word-for word translations of the Bible. Literal word-for-word translations don't always convey connotations and nuances behind the words themselves. For this reason, students of the Word should ideally use both literal translations and thought-to-thought translations. The episode also addresses King James' instruction that the KJV include no marginal notes outside of explanatory notes on the Greek and Hebrew. This requirement was obviously a swipe at the Geneva Bible, which had lots of antimonarchical and anti-ecclesiastical comments. King James went so far as to ban the Geneva Bible in 1616. James was nevertheless fair with Puritans (who had produced the Geneva Bible), including them on the translation committees so that the KJV was NOT a sectarian "establishment" translation of the Scriptures. By 1660 the KJV eclipsed the Geneva Bible in popularity, and for the next 200 years quoting from the Bible presupposed the KJV.
The preferment of “church” to “congregation” in the KJV
This episode addresses the translation of "ekklesia" in the KJV into "church" in Matthew 16:18. King James, who was understandably partial to the "established" Church of England which he led, insisted that translators use the word "church" instead of "congregation." The dispute is less over the literal meaning of "ekklesia" than over the connotations of the word in seventeenth century England. Both "church" and "congregation" accurately convey the meaning of "ekklesia," which literally means "those called out of." Yet one connotation of "church," which is still true today, points to the building and the establishment behind the structure. "Organized religion" embodies this connotation, on top of the literal meaning. James, who headed the established Church of England, insisted that "church" be the word translated from "ekklesia." Significantly, 4 previous English translations used the word "congregation," including the Great Bible and the Bishop's Bible. Ironically, the Geneva Bible, produced by Marian exiles who most resisted the "established" church, opted for "church" over "congregation, " largely in deference to John Calvin's high ecclesiology.
The Conservative Approach of KJV Translation
This episode spells out the conservative approach of the translators of the King James Bible and demonstrates that the KJV relied heavily on previous translations. One word study found that 83.7% of the KJV was identical to William Tyndale's New Testament. Translators were instructed to methodically go through the Bishop's Bible and make any modifications based on the Hebrew or Greek texts. The translators relied on relatively late copies of both testaments, drawing from the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew (11th century). With respect to the New Testament, translators mostly relied on Erasmus' compilation of Greek texts (3rd to 5th editions), as well as collections of Stephanus and Theodore Beza. Together these copies make up the Textus Receptus, or Majority Text. The Majority Text depends on relatively late manuscripts (12th century) but is nevertheless very reliable when compared to modern translations, which depend on manuscripts as old as the second and third centuries.