The Text To Be Translated
THE TEXT TO BE TRANSLATED
At first sight, the question of the identity of the text to be translated might seem to be so simple that it need not require comment. The translators, in the best traditions of biblical interpretation, set out to translate the original Hebrew and Greek texts into English. In what follows, we shall confine ourselves to discussion of the Greek text of the New Testament, as it is here that the issues we shall be considering are of special importance.
The sixteenth century saw important new developments in biblical translation. As we saw earlier (page 57), Erasmus of Rotterdam produced a printed Greek text of the New Testament in 1516, which called into question some of the Latin translations found in the Vulgate. Erasmus was obliged to compile his Greek text on the basis of various manuscripts he was able to consult. None of these were especially ancient; Erasmus had to work on the basis of the criterion of accessibility. As far as we can ascertain, none of the half dozen manuscripts were earlier than the tenth century.
Erasmus's edition of the Greek text of the New Testament was revised over the next century. The Parisian printer Robert Estienne produced a number of editions based on Erasmus's text, as did the Genevan theological and biblical scholar Theodore Beza later. It is known that the King James translators made use of Beza's edition of the Greek text of the New Testament; it was, after all, the best edition of the text then available.
This particular version of the text has come to be known as the textus receptus, (“the received text”), not because of any “official” church judgment or decision, but simply because New Testament scholars based their work upon it.6 Yet biblical scholarship has advanced considerably over the years. Much older manuscripts of the New Testament, or parts of it, have come to light. To appreciate the richness of the New Testament manuscript tradition, we may consider another work dating from around the same time—Julius Caesar's Gallic War, a famous account of the Roman wars in France, written around 50 B.C. The oldest known manuscript of this text dates from nine hundred years after Caesar's time.
Similarly, the oldest known manuscript of Thucydides' History—which was written sometime in the fifth century before Christ—was written down about fourteen hundred years later.
In the sixteenth century, the best editions of the Greek New Testament were based on manuscripts dating from no earlier than the tenth century. Since then, many new manuscripts have been discovered, of which the most famous is the Codex Sinaiticus, probably written in the fourth century. This was found in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1844, and is now held in the British Museum. The Codex Alexandrinus, probably written in the fifth century, was presented to King Charles I in 1627 by the patriarch of Alexandria. Theodore Beza himself presented an early Greek New Testament to the University of Cambridge in 1581; this contains the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in both Greek and Latin, and is thought to date from the fifth and sixth centuries. A vast range of papyri have also been found. The result is that we now have access to a much more accurate edition of the text of the New Testament than the King James translators knew.
It must be made clear immediately that this does not call into question the general reliability of the King James Bible. The issue concerns minor textual variations. Not a single teaching of the Christian faith is affected by these variations, nor is any major historical aspect of the gospel narratives or early Christianity affected. The important point is that, in general, the King James Bible was based on the textus receptus. Scholarly fashions have changed, and the Alexandrine text—named after the Codex Alexandrinus—is now preferred within the scholarly community to the Byzantine text, which the textus receptus reflects. Before going on to explore the kind of variations involved, and their possible significance, we may note a remarkable exception to the statement, made above, that the King James Bible followed Erasmus's text (see page 241).
The point is best understood by comparing the translation of 1 John 5:7–8 offered by the King James Bible and the Revised Standard Version:
KING JAMES BIBLE
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
It is immediately clear that we are dealing with something more than a translation difference here; the translations seem to be based on different texts. The issue identified by Erasmus in 1516 was that the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth” are not found in any Greek manuscript. They were added later to the Latin Vulgate, probably after 800, despite not being known in any ancient Greek version. The most likely explanation is that these words were initially added as a “gloss” (that is, a brief comment set beside or above the text), which a later scribe misunderstood to be something that should be added to the text itself. Subsequent scribes, basing themselves on this faulty copy, then included the words in later Latin texts. They are not part of the original Greek text of the New Testament.
For Erasmus, the solution was simple: the words should be deleted, as they were not part of the text of the New Testament. They were a late addition to the Latin Vulgate text, and had no right to be there. Their removal would cause nobody to lose sleep at night. Yet the translators of the King James Bible appear to have felt that tradition demanded that the additional words be retained. Subsequent revisions of English translations have, of course, removed the words as manifestly inauthentic.
This, however, is an exceptional case. In general, the variations between the textus receptus and Codex Alexandrinus are interesting, but slight. We shall examine several of these, drawn from the translation work of the Second Oxford Company, responsible for the translation of the gospels.
The first is the text widely known as the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13), which reads as follows in the King James Bible:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
The textus receptus here includes what is known as a “doxology”—that is, a closing section of praise: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” This is not found in earlier Greek manuscripts, and is, therefore, not included in later English translations such as the Revised Standard Version. However, the influence of the King James Bible was such that this closing section is still included in the traditional form of the Lord's Prayer, and has largely successfully resisted attempts to eliminate it.
A second is Matthew 5:43–44, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount. The King James Bible, again following the textus receptus, offers the following translation:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
The phrase “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” is not found in most Greek manuscripts, and is therefore omitted from modern English translations.
None of these alterations are earth-shattering. It is not, for example, as if every reference to the resurrection of Jesus turns out to date from the fourth century, not the apostolic period itself! Yet they are interesting in their own right, and cast important light both on the strengths and weaknesses of the King James Bible, and also the motivations for revision in later years. One such motivation may be set out very simply: as New Testament scholarship now regards the Alexandrian text of the New Testament as the most authentic, and the King James Bible is based on what is now seen as a slightly less reliable text, is not this a sufficient reason for requesting a revised translation?