The History of the Bible: Part 1 (of 3)

Is the Bible the Word of God?  That is a question that only faith can answer.  Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote?  That is a question that evidence can prove.  The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people.  It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew.  This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today.  Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.

            There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written. Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt. There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts.  Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong.  The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.

Parts 2 & 3 to follow (previous versions already available via the History of the Bible tab at the top of the web page) next week and the week after.

Jerome, Erasmus, the KJV, and the Wycliffe Bible Translators

The science/art of translation work will always lead to controversial decisions when the material in question is the Bible.  This isn’t new, not by a long shot.  When Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (so called because it was “vulgar”, like the way common people spoke in his day) was first read in St. Augustine’s parish the people rioted.  They had previously used the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the O.T.’s Hebrew, and didn’t want anything new.  In what seems ridiculous to us today, the people’s objection centered around Jerome’s more accurate translation of the plant that shaded Jonah from the gourd that the LXX had rendered it, to the caster-oil plant of the Vulgate.  Who cares which plant shaded Jonah?  This incident illustrates how seriously Bible translations can be taken by the people they are intended to help.

            Fast forward 1,300 years to Erasmus’ work on a Greek NT (basically returning the text in the West to its original language).  Erasmus was criticized heavily by his contemporaries when he made changes to Jerome’s now nearly sacred Latin Vulgate to the extent that he changed one important text (I John 5:7-9) to reflect the Vulgate’s reading even though it was not in any of the Greek texts that he was working with.  The Vulgate, received with skepticism at first, had become too loved to correct.

            The King James Bible followed this same pattern.  It was not preferred over the Geneva Bible for over forty years, but eventually became the primary Bible of the English speaking world.  When modern scholarship and archaeological discoveries enabled experts to correct some of the errors found in Erasmus’ Greek NT (he only had 7 of the now 5700+ manuscripts that we have to consult), the resulting modern translations came under fire by lovers of the KJV for daring to challenge their beloved text.  Even though genuine errors that had resulted from copyists’ errors were being corrected involving the 2% of the text that needed to be fixed (the other 98% was not affected, even with only 7 manuscripts, Erasmus’ work had been extraordinary), the ardent supports of the KJV were not willing to consider that a new translation of their 400 year old Bible was needed.

            The recent controversy involving Wycliffe Bible Translators regarding the use of “Allah” in Muslim countries for God, and how to best translate the familial relationship between God the Father and God the Son when our understanding of it is difficult to put into the receiving language’s cultural context, illustrates the same passion for Bible translations that plagued Jerome, Erasmus, and the teams that produced the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the rest.

            I have no problem with those who raise well informed objections to any part of the translation process, from the Greek/Hebrew text being used, to the translation theory behind the words chosen in the new language.  Such conversations can be a useful part of the process.  What I do not accept, and will not have any patience with, is the use of personal attacks used against these men and women whose lives are in service to the Church, such that they are accused of being under Satanic influence simply because somebody doesn’t like their choices in the translation process.  How ridiculous is it for Christians to accuse other Christians of evil simply because they can’t agree on how best to convey the Word of God to the lost?  It would be laughable if this joke wasn’t so serious.  Jerome wasn’t evil when he brought the “vulgar” Bible to the people in a language they could understand, neither was Erasmus when he sought to return to the original Greek as a basis for translation work into new vernacular languages.  The modern Bible translators had no nefarious plans when they updated the text behind the KJV and corrected the minor errors that were found, and neither are the Wycliffe Bible Translators tools of Satan simply because they’re trying to bring Jesus Christ to Muslim lands.  Stop the invective, stop the pronouncements of doom from on high; it sounds ridiculous and only shows that the person making it cares more about being right in their own mind than they do about the work of the Gospel.  Informed and knowledgeable Christians can, and will, disagree about translational issues, but they cannot treat those they disagree with like enemies and lob at them baseless accusations no more accurate than a politician’s TV ad; the only one laughing at this sad joke when they do, is the person they’ve accused their opponent of serving. 

Caught between two worlds

One of the fascinating thing about study history is the chance to see patterns emerge that may lend insight into the world we live in today.  I understand that not everything would think this to be exciting, but I often find that an example or illustration from the past works wonders in helping people understand the present.
As I continue to read through Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, one of the things that keeps popping up is the contrast and conflict between men and women in Church history who desired certainty (in theology, morality, cultural norms, etc.) and those who valued ambiguity.  Sometimes the difference is one of personality; some people simply cannot abide ambiguity, they feel a deep need to categorize and label everything; others feel the opposite, being asked to take an either/or position makes them uncomfortable, it just feels wrong.  On top of differences of personality we have cultural differences.  Some cultures emphasize the need to take a stand, others value including multiple viewpoints.
Church history (and human history in general) has often been a case of two people who care about the same thing (on a host of different issues) not being able to see eye to eye because one is seeking certainty and the other is valuing ambiguity.
As you read this you may be thinking, "Of course we need certainty, only a Commie liberal would want that multi-cultural crap".  Or perhaps the opposite, "What kind of fascist jerk would assume he has all the answers to everything!"  That our politics often seems divided between similar viewpoints is no fluke.  Western Civilization is a combination of the heritage of two cultures: The Greek world of Plato and Aristotle, and the Jewish world of Moses, Jesus, and Paul.  The Greeks were forever seeking ultimate truth, unable to let an issue lie, they loved the constant questions necessary to peal away layers of uncertainty.  The Jewish mind on the other hand, disdained those who claimed to know it all in favor of consensus, including every opinion and letting a majority decide things but always leaving the back door open in case a change of mind was necessary down the road.  The very languages of which our Scriptures are comprised reflect that, the precision of Greek and the ambiguity of Hebrew shows itself in the very structure of the languages themselves.
As a result of our mix and match heritage, the Church (and Western Civilization) has always prized the search for ultimate Truth but at the same time has felt discomfort when we think we have found it.  We crave unity of opinion, but know that we should leave room for those who don't fit in.  We value diversity, but find ourselves hoping that all that diversity agrees with us.  Is it any wonder that there are more Christian denominations in existence today than we can even keep track of, and yet at the same time we still long for a universal big "C" Church to stand above the fray.
My own intellectual experience reflects these tendencies.  When I was younger I craved the neatness of certainty, but the more I learned and the more I experienced the more I came to realize that such textbook answers are rarely as cut and dried as people think.  When I was younger I hesitated to extend the term "Christian" to peoples and groups with whom I saw little in common, but as time went by I began to see the underlying bond we share beneath the surface disagreements.  In the end, I've come to a place where I can affirm ultimate Truth with confidence on the core issues of our faith (see I John, or better yet download and read my book for more on this topic) and yet remain open to the multiple of expressions of that faith that exist in the Church today.
Maybe you don't want to be caught between two worlds, maybe you want only one or the other, but I'm sorry to tell you that isn't an option.  Everything we think, say, and do is a product of our common heritage, a heritage God intended to be born of two worlds, a Hebrew Old Testament and a Greek New Testament.