On Bible Translations
My Christian brother began telling me about the manuscripts used as sources for his favorite Bible translation and for mine. Before he was done, he was telling me that my Bible was missing Acts 8:37, as well as most of Genesis. I tried to assure him that the Bible in front of me contained every verse in question. He used the inclusion of the questioned verses as proof of the translators' lack of integrity.
Even more recently, after I had typed the first draft of this paper, my daughter brought home a study written by a schoolmate. This young man had devoted 119 pages to comparing Bible translations. He had stated his case thoroughly and passionately. Unfortunately, he seems to have approached his work from a viewpoint that assumed modern Bible translations to be fraudulent. Study of his first five pages revealed four errors, their causes ranging from lack of background knowledge (Nebuchadnezzar's words in Daniel 3:25) to denial of the validity of translation of one word (the Hebrew word translated grace in the KJV in Genesis 6:8). I wish that he had started his research with a set of assumptions that could have led him to a better body of evidence, not to mention a more defensible conclusion.
Given the large number and relatively young age of the available Greek New Testament manuscripts, and the care with which the scribes copied the Hebrew Old Testament, I doubt that any modern direct translation can yield major surprises. Serious original-language scholars, seminary professors, and your local pastor will both reject Bible translations that stray from the truth and scorn those who attempt to market such books.
Though opinions run deep, strong, and in all directions on this subject, a Christian may legitimately ask: Is there a Scriptural justification for using any particular translation of Scripture? While the Bible obviously mentions no post-Reformation translation by name, there are some principles in it that can help a Christian choose the best translation for his personal use.
Now look at the above verse again. The word translated barbarian is the Greek barbaros, which originally meant foreigner. However an Englishman in 1611 perceived the word, or the person it described, a modern American sees the word barbarian and imagines a grunting, sword-swinging, rampaging Hun, Vandal, or Visigoth. Is this what Paul really wrote? Is this the picture King James' translators tried to convey? Or, were the speaker (writer) and hearer (reader) merely foreigners to each other? Indeed, are the translator of the above verse and its modern reader not foreigners to each other, sharing a common language but estranged by a barrier of dialect?
Any translation out of the Hebrew and Greek is set in time. If the time has come and gone when the English (or German, or Russian, or any other language) used in a Bible translation was clearly understood by most readers, will today's reader be edified by that translation? If the reader lacks understanding of the text, how can he give his Amen to (agree with) what he has read?
My own experience with old and new Bible translations tells me that some readers will not do enough research to dig out modern meaning from an old translation. They will go around for years thinking Samson's riddle (Judges 14:14) was a dud. They will puzzle over how Jesus delivered the Tabernacle into the Promised Land (Acts 7:45), and why he failed to give his people rest (Hebrews 4:8). They will probably live in minor discomfort over the fact that the Love Chapter (I Cor. 13) does not contain the word love. They might even wonder about the numerous meat offerings (Exodus 29:41; Leviticus 2:1; Numbers 6:15; Num. 7:13, 19, 25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79) that contained no meat. Should a Christian layman have to research these topics, digging through concordances and commentaries, asking the clergy over and over for an explanation? Is a translation that eliminates the need for such study not valuable?
Though the vast majority of clergy are God-directed, well-meaning people, there is one more uncomfortable possibility that can arise if all Christians do not have access to an understandable translation of the Bible. In the Middle Ages, there were times and places in which laymen were effectively denied access to the Bible. The clergy ruled over their congregations, for better or worse, because only they could see for themselves what God's Word said. If an understandable Bible is not available to every Christian, are we not back in that unfortunate situation?
The King James Bible will never lose its reputation as a classic book. It is interconnected with, and clarified by, more study helps than any of its younger siblings. Its language is exalted, poetic, picturesque. I cannot speak against it, if its reader can truly understand what is written there.
On the other hand, the Twentieth-Century direct translations (not paraphrases) of the Bible can give a less-educated reader a clearer understanding of God's Word on the first reading. This can be valuable to a new Christian as he tries to incorporate the Word into his life quickly. Line can build upon line, and precept upon precept (Isaiah 28:10), in less time. Would this not accelerate growth in the Faith? And is that growth not our primary reason for reading the Word of God?