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.
