Losing the Truth in Bible Translations?

by ApagaLaLuz 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Satanus

  The issue of authentic/accurate bible translation, and even the question of which books should be part of the canon tells me that there are some basic flaws w the premis that an omniscient, omnipotent god was/is the bible's inspirer and supporter. Compare all the controversy that has surrounded the bible for at least 2000 yrs w, for instance, the writings of plato, or even shakespeare. Some of plato's ideas could be said to be inspired, but basically, compared to the bible, meanings contained in both of those canons are fairly coherent. Surely the bible god could have made his message to his children less confusing.

  SS
• 

  Leolaia

  The notion of God as the author of the Bible....the OT is the national literature of ancient Israel and post-exilic Judea. It contains poetry, proverbs, history, law, and yes, fiction. Why should a nation's literary heritage be considered authored by one person, expressing ONE point of view, much less that of GOD!! The NT is similarly a portion of the literature of the early Christian church, expressing many of the different points of view therein (tho limited mostly to the Pauline and Johannine church -- one has to hunt around for the contribution of the Jewish-Christian church). --Leolaia
• 

  Earnest

  I would just like to take the thought that translation is part of scripture a step further. Narkissos gave the example of Isaiah 7:14 and mentioned that the Greek text (translation) served as a basis for the virgin birth stories. The difference between the original and the translation has been a source of controversy at least since the time of Origen (and doubtless before) but was the truth served better by the original or the translation ? I suppose the answer must depend on whether the virgin birth actually happened and whether the scripture in Isaiah was intended to have a messianic fulfillment.

  As many (not all) quotations of the OT in the NT were from the Greek Septuagint, including Jesus' reference to scripture, was that not a seal of approval that the translation was as acceptable as the original ? There is evidence in some instances that this definitely is the case. For example, in 2 Samuel 6:5 the Hebrew reads "And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before Jehovah with all the juniper trees and with harps and with lyres...". The Septuagint reads "And David and the children of Israel [were] playing before the Lord on well-tuned instruments mightily, and with songs, and with harps, and with lutes..." which agrees with the parallel passage in Chronicles (which has no mention of juniper trees). In Genesis 4:8 the Hebrew reads "After that Cain said to Abel his brother. So it came about that while they were in the field..." The Septuagint has "After that Cain said to Abel his brother 'Let us go over into the field'. So it came about that while they were in the field..."

  It needs to be kept in mind that the definitive text of the OT was only fixed after the time of Christ and there was a great deal of flux in Hebrew textual tradition at the time that the Septuagint was translated. This is also born out by the Dead Sea Scrolls. So there may well be instances that the truth lies in the (LXX) translation rather in what is considered to be the Hebrew original. This is more difficult to claim when it comes to later translations. But at the risk of being contentious I would suggest that just as there are words and ideas that can only be conveyed in Hebrew and Greek, so likewise there are words and ideas that can only be conveyed in English or French or Xhosa etc. In these cases the nuance carried in translation may well be more accurate in conveying God's message than the original. For example, there are many passages in the NT reflecting on the divinity of Christ which can be correctly translated to suggest Christ is God and equally correctly translated to suggest he is not. Unless the purpose of the writer was to create endless controversy it may be that the English translation conveys the idea better than the original. What is not clear is which of the two translations is the improvement on the original.

  Earnest
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Earnest,

  I just saw your post now. With it we are brought back to the basic question "What is truth?". My opinion is that religious truth is exactly what you want it to be.

  You mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls, but you are certainly aware that they are not an unilateral witness to the Septuagint's Hebrew substrate. For instance, you know how different the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) are in the book of Jeremiah. The fact is that two Hebrew texts have been found in the same Qumran cave, one (4QJra) roughly corresponding to the later MT, the other (4QJrb) to the LXX. The conclusion is that the two Hebrew editions coexisted and were accepted in Judaism until the Mishnic school eliminated the variant texts, only keeping the premasoretic one.

  As Hebrew scholar Emmanuel Tov noted years ago, in such cases the very idea of an "original" (as the traditional goal of textual criticism) vanishes. What we are left with is the infinite drift of scripture and meaning, in which translation belongs as far as we can know. French author Jacques Derrida made this theme one of the main bases of his fascinating philosophical and literary work.
• 

  Mysterious

  For instance, what if there were a Hebrew or Greek word for an idea that didn't exist in English?

  I remember a watchtower a few weeks back that was on loving kindness..that was the whole point was them trying to convey the meaning without having an English word that was equivalent. Maybe someone else can remember more..I was um zoned out.
• 

  Leolaia

  Well, in the case of the biblical texts, I am a little leery of the Derrida view of everything being an iteration of iterations without an original but I appreciate the point. Look at the Gospel of Mark. Here we have canonical Mark in our Bibles which is not the book's original form, the Secret Gospel of Mark which is most likely what our canonical Mark is based on, and the older version of Mark that was used by Matthew and Luke (yet differences between them suggest that they themselves knew variant texts) but which no longer exists....plus the ending which likely dates to the 2nd cent. and the uncertainty over whether an ending has been lost, whether Mark intended the gospel to end where it is, or whether the "autograph" was never finished....

  Leolaia
• 

  Mysterious

  That is why when I have talked to Muslims on the ministry they say the Koran has never changed --it has always been in Arabic and there is no such thing as an English Koran as too much gets lost in the translation

  That's true. I think a student of any language can tell you that. Try to translate a story, joke, or comic from another language. It totally loses it's meaning.
• 

  Earnest

  You mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls, but you are certainly aware that they are not an unilateral witness to the Septuagint's Hebrew substrate. - Narkissos, 14-Dec-03 22:01 GMT

  Yes, the DSS were mentioned in the context that "there was a great deal of flux in Hebrew textual tradition at the time that the Septuagint was translated". The Nash papyrus is a good example of this (although it is not part of the DSS it is dated to the same period - second to first century B.C.E.). At the moment there is an exhibition at Cambridge University Library on Sacred Scripts which includes the Nash papyrus and the library provides the following notes:

  The Nash papyrus is one of the Library's oldest manuscripts and among the world's few surviving Hebrew papyri. The text comprises an unusual version of the Ten Commandments that sometimes agrees with the Exodus version and sometimes with the version in Deuteronomy. Furthermore, the text occasionally accords with the Greek version of the Late Old Testament period, the Septuagint. The first verse of the ancient Hebrew prayer, the Shema (Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord), is also appended to the text with a preface and a variation of the text based, once again, on the Greek and not the Hebrew version. This manuscript is important for providing early evidence of the history of the transmission of the Hebrew Bible.

  As you observe, the idea of obtaining an original OT text vanishes into the mists of time. The irony is that just as we rely on the Catholic Church for the canon of the NT, so we rely on rabbinical Judaism for the Hebrew text which we accept as sacred.