As we get started thinking about the King James Version controversies, I want to think about the nature of translation and inspiration. I suppose some have read more extensively on this than I have, but some aspects of the topic that seem to lack discussion. This is my attempt at addressing those issues.
This post may well display a complete grasp of the obvious, but I’ve never let that stop me so far.
In commentaries on the Bible, one will often see critiques of various translations. For example, the Bible Knowledge Commentary on 2 Peter 2.13 says this:
Though the false teachers tried to pass themselves off as spiritual leaders possessing a special level of knowledge, they did not even hide their orgies under the cover of darkness but would carouse in broad daylight, while reveling in their pleasures (apatais, perhaps better trans. “deceptions”). ((Kenneth O. Gangel, “2 Peter,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 872.))
The BKC is a commentary on the text of the New International Version, 1978 edition (NIV). Here are a few other translations:
2Pe 2:13 suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, (NASB 1995)
2Pe 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; (KJV)
2Pe 2:13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. (NIV 2011)
You can see a variation between “pleasures” and “deceptions, deceivings” in translating the word, ??????? (apatais from ?????, apate). The lexicons tend to favor “deceit, deception” but there is a note in one lexicon that “pleasures” is an alternative. ((“Attention may be called to Deissmann’s note in his Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus (Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altertum, 1903), p. 165 n.: he recalls the fact that ????? in popular Hellenistic had the meaning “pleasure,” and finds this in Mt 13.22 = Mk 4.19 (cf. Lk 8.14) and 2 Pet 2.13” Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the New Testament, p. 54.))
My apologies for getting technical! You can see two opinions on this translation and the commentator disagreeing with the NIV translators on this one.
Almost no one has any kind of problem with discussion like this. I suppose even King James Onlyists (KJO) will use the Bible Knowledge Commentary and other similar reference works. They may not care for the NIV that the BKC comments on, but they likely find it useful for their own study. If not, they might use plenty of other commentaries that include statements like this.
Why is a discussion of “better translations” acceptable? Because we are talking about translations, not the actual words of the original. In this particular case, as it happens, there are variant readings. Our word means “deceptions,” one variant is “love feasts,” and the other is “ignorant ideas.” Each of the two variants are spelled somewhat similarly to our word. What is interesting, however, is that ALL English versions are translating the same word: “???????.” They all agree on the original – the KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, all of them. Thus, all translations are clearly working from the underlying original, just as Peter wrote it down almost two thousand years ago. It is quite legitimate to search out the proper meaning of ????? (apate) in modern English. Nobody argues that a vocabulary choice in translation is a problem. (Almost nobody…)
What if a commentary were to argue that Peter should have used a different word altogether? What if it argued that Peter should have said something else, used a different word, or perhaps that he never used these words at all (in spite of the agreement in the manuscripts)? Some writers are willing to make challenges similar to that. Bible-believing readers would be correct in being alarmed. They wouldn’t accept such claims and probably would give up using the commentary in a “quick hurry” (as one of my favorite hockey bloggers likes to say).
Why are we okay with discussing different translation choices, but not willing to allow someone to correct the underlying text? Because the translators are not inspired. They are using the inspired original to communicate to us in English what the authors said in Greek (or Hebrew). When someone starts telling us that the text itself has problems, then our spidey sense starts tingling (or else, it ought to!).
We have a scriptural basis for our sensibility with respect to the original. In the conclusion to the Book of the Revelation, John says,
Rev 22:18 ¶ I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
When you start changing the words of God, you are in serious danger. Bible believers are uncomfortable with this kind of approach to the Scriptures. ((I should note that some commentators limit the application of this passage to the book of Revelation alone, but I think at least principially, if not absolutely, these words apply to the whole Bible.)) Bible believers hold to the authority of the originals, not the translators. They accept the work of the authors as inspired, not the work of translators.
The authority of the original autographs is essential to understanding a grievous error in the KJO movement, something we will talk about in a future post.
— Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Comments