Losing the Truth in Bible Translations?

by ApagaLaLuz 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  stillajwexelder

  I am fortunate in that I can read both Latin and Greek having studied them at college. Let us take two classics. Jeromes Latin Vulgate which is available -- was translated into Latin (2nd /3rdCentury off memory) from the Greek. If you translate the latin into English and say compare with the Emphatic Diaglott or Kingdom Interlinear from Greek into English -- there are major differences. You can not get around this. 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
• 

  Leolaia

  Today in the bookstore I saw the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. It is a new translation of the Old Testament from the ancient Hebrew texts found at Qumrun. It might make an interesting translation. There are translations, of course, based on the Masoretic text which is far more recent (dating only to the Middle Ages) but involving translation from only one language into English. Then there are translations out there (like the Douay, like the Jerusalem Bible) based on Greek or Latin texts far older than the Masoretic but already translated in ancient times into another language. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible might be quite interesting as it is translated directly from Hebrew AND is based on texts OLDER than surviving Septuagint texts. It is like having your cake and eating it too.... :)

  Leolaia
• 

  Narkissos

  Stillajwexelder: you are absolutely right. What I meant in my first post on this thread is the following: translation and its unavoidable drift of meaning (that we may call "error") are part of the very ORIGINAL Christian Bible. It would not be what it is without them.

  When the texts which later were gathered into the New Testament were written (in Greek), most of their authors didn't know Hebrew or Aramaic. They only knew the Jewish old literature (most of which was to be gathered into the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament according to the Christians) by means of the Greek (Septuagint) translation. It is this translation they mostly quote, and it is often different in meaning from the original Hebrew.

  Just one example (perhaps the most famous one): in Isaiah 7:14 the mother of Emmanuel is called a 'almah, which probably means a nubile girl or a young woman until the birth of her firstborn. The Septuagint used the Greek word parthenos, meaning "virgin". In the Greek text a virgin birth was meant, in the original Hebrew text there is not a hint of it. But it is the Greek text which serves as the basis for the virgin birth stories in Matthew (explicitly) and Luke (implicitly). Thus translation is a part of Scripture.
• 

  Euphemism

  sillajwexelder
  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

  Yep... of course, that's also an excellent way for the learned clergy to keep control of the flock.

  In all fairness, however, Muslims do translate the Koran... they just call it a paraphrase instead of a translation.

  Narkissos
  When the texts which later were gathered into the New Testament were written (in Greek), most of their authors didn't know Hebrew or Aramaic.

  I would take issue with this statement. Unless you believe that the NT texts were actually written by Hellenistic Christians (or at least former diaspora Jews) who had never lived in Palestine, they must have known Hebrew. I suppose that since the authorship of the gospels is unknown, that's a possibility... but it seems like a stretch, given that Christians remained in Jerusalem until at least the late 60's CE. Furthermore, don't the authentically Pauline letters also contain Septuagintal mistranslations? And I don't think that anyone would question that Paul knew Hebrew.

  So I think that these mistranslations arose from the fact that the Septuagint was commonly at hand, and the Bible writers would use whatever translation seemed to fit their position best. I don't think that it actually came from ignorance of the original languages. (Although it may have been partly due to ignorance of the original-language texts. But there is a difference.)
• 

  Narkissos

  Euphemism,

  Your issue is not essential to my argument (the fact IS that the NT writers used the Septuagint, whatever the motives), yet I stick to what I wrote.

  According to the papyrii and epigraphic evidence, it appears that very few people could read and understand Hebrew in 1st century Palestine. The people's language was Aramaic (which was already the case in Ezra-Nehemiah, and is also reflected in the Gospels' transliteration of aramaic words, though all of those do not necessarily come from a Palestinian context), and Greek was amazingly widespread too, especially in Galilee but even in Judea. Hebrew was mostly the language of the priests (Qumrân included) and scribes. It was read but rarely understood in synagogues. As for Paul, the onus probandi rests on your side. I don't see the slightest evidence in his writings that he could read Hebrew fluently. I still remember a well-known French exegete saying, much to the surprise of his audience: "Paul's knowledge of Hebrew was approximately that of the average clergyman years after he has graduated from seminary." Finally, I believe that most NT writers were Hellenistic. There was a patristic tradition about a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, but most exegetes now think it is not related to the Gospel of Matthew as we now know it.
• 

  Guest 77

  Chevy, an interesting post. I like to go back to the 'context' of your post and that is, "How true of a translation of the Bible do you think YOU can FIND?...I remember little things...'A' and 'The'...completely changed the meaning of the English scripture."

  Back in May of this year I was reading a book by Vivien Kellems titled, "Toil, Taxes and Trouble" One Women's Crusade to End the Federal Income Tax, and I can across some interesting points that's in line with your question.

  The Publisher's Preface to the second edition had this say about Jesus words to the subject of paying taxes. I will quote accordingly from the Pub's preface. The account is recorded in Matt.22:15-22 as well as in mark mark 12:13-17 and luke 20:20-26. The religious leaders and hypocrites had gathered to try to trap Jesus into making a politically incorrect statement about the payment of taxes. They had asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Jesus recognized their wickedness and said, .., "Show me the coin used for the tax...Whose face and name is this? They said to him Caesar's. So he said to them, 'Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."

  One of the remarkable elements to this story is that Jesus never spoke against paying taxes. he just wanted to see that everyone got his just due - both to God and Caesar. And even more, the funamental question as to who owes what and how much - and to whom (or for whom) it is owed - has been overlooked by most commentators. The reason for for this oversight has to do with mistranslation in the text. The problem is with one of the verbs in Matthew 22:21. Note how the verb is translated as "give back" in the ISV while other translations erronesly translate the verb as 'Render" in the NKJ. "Give" in the NIV, NLT and NRSV.

  You see, the versions of the Bible above have translated the operative verb as "to render" or "to give." That is to say, the presumption is that Caesar and God are to be "given to" in the same fashion. But only the ISV brings forth the marvelously subtle elements of the Greek verb here. The proper word choice is not "give' but rather "give back." And there is a world of difference. Jesus was saying that everything belongs to God in the first place. Ina very real sense, God is "owed" everything that we have. he is our source. But in the Roman world, Caesar was God. In these passages, to "give back" is the proper translation in regards to obligations to God and to Caesar for the audience to whom Jesus was speaking.

  But America is not Rome. And the principles on which America was founded say that our money belongs to us first, as the people earn it. And all of these rights are "inalienable" meaning that they cannot be taken away by the government. Further, in America the government's ability to govern AND to tax is derived from the consent of the governed, i.e. "We the People." Therefore if Jesus were speaking these words to America today, He would say "Then give to America the things that are America's, and give back to God the things that are God's."

  May I say, the book is an interesting read.

  Guest 77
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Euphemism said Yep... of course, that's also an excellent way for the learned clergy to keep control of the flock. - -sorry to drift slightly off thread, but it has struck me this is so correct -- once again all down to control --- from the Dark Ages until after the Protestant reformation -- only learned clergy who could read Latin etc were allowed to read/own and teach the bible so they had control of the flock. Today of course, only the Faithful and Discreet Slave understand and can teach the scriptures -- CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL
• 

  Guest 77

  
  Right on stillexj. Once you understand that everything is about control, the pieces fall into place. Ah, the lust for power! Greed has no morals.

  uest 77
• 

  Euphemism

  Narkissos... you're right, of course, I was not disagreeing with your main point.

  Everything you said in your reply, however, applies to Hebrew. However, in your previous post, you said "Hebrew or Aramaic", and that is the part I was taking issue with. As you acknowledged in your reply, Aramaic was the common language of Palestine. Hence, any NT writers who were from Palestine almost certainly spoke Aramaic.

  One thing I was wondering, I really don't know, but you seem knowledgeable on this subject, so you might have some idea... in what language was the Torah read at synagogues in Palestine in the first century? Was it an Aramaic translation, or was it original Hebrew?
• 

  Narkissos

  Hello Euphemism,

  I probably should have developed a bit:

  - In the "Old Testament" only Ezra 4:8--6:18 and Daniel 2:4--7:28 are in aramaic. So any knowledge of aramaic by the NT writers would not have helped them so much in reading the Hebrew Bible. Just think of the difference between the Greek transliteration of popular aramaic "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani" in Mark 15:34 and the original "Eli, Eli, lama azavtani" in the Hebrew Psalm 22:2 (and here the syntax is similar).

  - The different dialects of aramaic spoken in Palestine in the 1st century CE, as reflected in the Qumran texts on one side and in the Jerusalem inscriptions on the other side, are quite different from this "Biblical aramaic".

  - I doubt any NT WRITER (I don't mean previous oral or written tradition) was of Palestinian origin.

  - As for the Hebrew language itself, it had been undergoing a major shift from classical to mishnic (the first syntactical evidence of which is already apparent in Esther and Qoheleth = Ecclesiast). This means that classical Hebrew was well on its way to become a dead language (which it was by the end of the 2nd century CE).

  To answer your question, I think the Bible text was definitely read in Hebrew in synagogues as it is still now, even if not understood (somewhat like the Qoran reading in literary Arabic, or the old Latin Mass). Then it was explained and commented orally in the common language (Aramaic in some Palestinian and Syrian synagogues, Greek in many others). The oral "free translation" / "commentary" in aramaic is the very basis of the later Targums.