Shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?

[Charles Meadows]

TC,

That asks a lot of questions.

1. Scripture is inspired and inerrant in that what it says is what God is communicating to us.

2. What Paul wrote 2000 years ago is indecipherable to the average believer. It is error-free to be sure - but of what benefit is that for the believer? The non-Greek-reader can with the aid of the Holy Spirit undertand the HCSB - but the other will be "Greek" to him/her (heh heh).

3. Yes what paul wrote in those letters was perfect - but again - where is it? The manuscript varinats owing to human frailty of which you speak comprise our Bibles (English and Greek).

4. I think you know quite well that I didn't say this. Paul didn't write errors. On the other hand the Greek of Revelation is pretty sloppy - but that reflects the fact that John was not a native Greek-speaker and did the best he could.

5. I think this has already been answered (see last post).

6. I assume you know the story behind Hermas - it enjoyed popularity in many circles and was attached to several early manuscripts - after Revelation however I think. It's popularity waned by the 4th century and it was not included in the final canon. I have no doubt God did not intend for it to be handed down as His inspired word.

7. Translators inspired? That's tricky. Certainly not in the same sense as the authors of the NT - but I believe that we have to seen God as having protected translation efforts in order to allow us to have English Bibles.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I believe that recalling just one familar example (with most of us) will prove that knowing the text in Greek does in fact yield additional information. The examples I'm thinking of are all translated as "love" in English and sometimes "charity" in the KJV; but a Greek reader can know more completely about the particular kind of love being described in a passage.

But that's the problem!

Greek words, like English words, don't have fixed meanings - they have ranges of meaning. The English "like" and "love" arguably have different meanings (although similar) - but there is enough overlap that to say that "love" is always stronger than "like" would be unjustified. It is the same with Greek (consider Jesus' discussion with Peter at the end of John's Gospel). As such a novice Greek student could "see" a distinction that is not really there!

I (an avid student of Greek - and Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, German, Spanish, and Aramaic) never said that Greek learning was not of value - but rather that there is a big difference between knowing some of a language and having real colloquial mastery of it.

 

[franklinmonroe]

1. If God breathed a revelation to us then I take that as meaning that it is accessible to all of us...

The written revelation of God is accessible to almost all of us. Some cultures have not yet been reached with a translation in a language they understand (some people groups have no current written language at all); and then there are some under-educated and illiterate folks.

Nevertheless, not all of us with understanding can take advantage of what is already available. Have you ever been present when an 'inside' joke was spoken in a group (and you weren't privy to the basis of the humor)? You heard all the words of the joke just as everybody else (that's access), but you didn't receive the humor of it (yet, others did). A more explicit example of this would be a young child compared to an adult reading the same Bible passage (both have access); would you expect the child to comprehend as much as the adult?

 

[franklinmonroe]

But that's the problem!

Greek words, like English words, don't have fixed meanings - they have ranges of meaning. The English "like" and "love" arguably have different meanings (although similar) - but there is enough overlap that to say that "love" is always stronger than "like" would be unjustified. It is the same with Greek (consider Jesus' discussion with Peter at the end of John's Gospel). As such a novice Greek student could "see" a distinction that is not really there!

I (an avid student of Greek - and Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, German, Spanish, and Aramaic) never said that Greek learning was not of value - but rather that there is a big difference between knowing some of a language and having real colloquial mastery of it.

Good points, and I understand what you are saying. However --

First, English is in current use, and thus it can still change in unpredictable ways; koine Greek is not really changing very fast these days.

Second, it is precisely these ranges that are problematic in translation. In the original language the range of the word is limited to just the source language; BUT after translation (now assuming the best possible word was selected) another range of meaning in the target language is introduced. The ranges likely do not align exactly, potentially resulting in a meaning perceived by a reader of the translation that is completely outside the range of the source word.

Third, as I have (repeatedly) previously stated the language (a tool) is only as accurate as the skill of the person using it. Therefore, it is not Greek at fault when a novice misunderstands or misconstrues a text. English is not inferior because I misunderstood the Psalm 23 as a child (why wouldn't I "want" my Lord-Shepherd?).

Problems in the original languages are multiplied in translations; and at the highest levels of comprehension the original languages are the only solution.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Problems in the original languages are multiplied in translations; and at the highest levels of comprehension the original languages are the only solution.

Frank,

Yes these are true. And I love the original languages. But I also realize that high level comprehension of them is not attainable by the average churchgoer. Thus I have a problem with someone asserting that somehow our Bibles today are of lesser quality - that seems, to me, to diminish God's ability to provide Hisnpeople with His word.

 

[Palatka51]

Sorry, but that is a blatant twisting of those scriptures to fit your doctrinal foibles.

May you find grace to deal with brothers that are trying to reason in the Word.

 

[Mexdeaf]

May you find grace to deal with brothers that are trying to reason in the Word.

Thank you for your kind response, I do need grace.

I have no problems with your convictions concerning BV's- whatever they be- but I do with taking Scripture out of context to try to prove them.

2 Timothy 2:15- Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (ESV)

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion... :godisgood:

 

[Palatka51]

Sorry, but that is a blatant twisting of those scriptures to fit your doctrinal foibles.

Why wouldn't being called to translate those "Original" manuscripts from the Greek or Hebrew be an inspired calling, be it into English, German, Spanish, French, Tabagwan or any of all 100s of languages and dialects that span the globe. It is, after all, the mandate of Christ.
Luke 24:45-47
45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Now how can this be done except they hear and read it in their own language?
I am willing to wager that the Tabagwan tribe of the Philippines love their translation as the Word of God even though it was translated out of an English Bible.
In like manner I love and reverence the KJV whereby I heard and responded to the Word of God onto salvation and if I responded then others will as well.
If this is strange to you then count me as a fool and wash your hands of me and let God correct my foolishness.
If I am in error and therefore a child of God I will submit to His chastening rod not your retorts.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I also realize that high level comprehension of them is not attainable by the average churchgoer. Thus I have a problem with someone asserting that somehow our Bibles today are of lesser quality...

Charles, you seem to recognize that there is in fact fuller understanding available to those that have mastered the original languages. You seem to be troubled by the issue that not all believers can readily attain that information.

But why do you want to insist that all believers be the same? God deals with us each differently in regard to our spiritual gifts, does He not?

So then, if an individual's translated Bible contains a text that is at least equal to their personal highest level of comprehension, then it should not matter to them that there is information in the original language text that is beyond their grasp (physically or intellectually).

In fact, believers of the 1st/2nd centuries would not have had entire books of the canon; was their Bible less inspired? The many flawed MSS that have been discovered recently did not at first come into exsistance solely for our benefit (through textual criticism), but were our forefathers' everyday Bibles; was their Bible less inspired?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Why wouldn't being called to translate those "Original" manuscripts from the Greek or Hebrew be an inspired calling, be it into English, German, Spanish, French, Tabagwan or any of all 100s of languages and dialects that span the globe. It is, after all, the mandate of Christ...

I think a translation effort could be Holy Spirit directed, but I don't think it must be.

First, I think there is a significant difference between "inspired" (aroused, stimulated) people, and "God-breathed" (expelled, infused) scripture. The Holy Spirit can lead believers into ministries today without special limited miraculous intervention (like tongues, and direct revelation). I see no dramatic evidence for supernaturally-lead translators, any more so than say, divinely-moved accountants or plumbers.

Second, do believers always get special inspiration to obey a simple command? For example, believers ought to "love thy neighbor" without expecting a unique 'calling' of the Holy Spirit to do so.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Why are so many so certain that the 'autographs' were, in fact, destroyed, or lost? The fact that apparently we do not have them, today, does not necessarily mean some or all of them are no longer in existence, somewhere...

Could we know if we had discovered an autograph? If an early 1st century Christian document was found today, would there be a way to prove that it was penned by Peter, Luke, John, or Paul? If we possessed an authentic autograph, how would we know?

 

[franklinmonroe]

The OP question "shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?" has suffered very little discussion, despite many posts.

The value of anything 'original' is inherent in its one-of-kind characteristic. No one travelling to the Louvre in Paris desires to view a masterful forgery of the Mona Lisa; they have come to see Leonardo da Vinci's original painting. This is the reason the original draft of the Constitution of the United States enjoys the highest security.

I believe it would be very informative to view a biblical autograph. It would be wonderful to see the character of the pen marks, and to observe the emotion in the script (bold or delicate, bearing down or light pressure in places?). Does the handwriting indicate leisure, or haste? Where do the line and page breaks occur? Are there tear stains upon the parchment? Oh yes, I would value an autograph greatly!

 

[Charles Meadows]

Charles, you seem to recognize that there is in fact fuller understanding available to those that have mastered the original languages. You seem to be troubled by the issue that not all believers can readily attain that information.

But why do you want to insist that all believers be the same? God deals with us each differently in regard to our spiritual gifts, does He not?

So then, if an individual's translated Bible contains a text that is at least equal to their personal highest level of comprehension, then it should not matter to them that there is information in the original language text that is beyond their grasp (physically or intellectually).

In fact, believers of the 1st/2nd centuries would not have had entire books of the canon; was their Bible less inspired? The many flawed MSS that have been discovered recently did not at first come into exsistance solely for our benefit (through textual criticism), but were our forefathers' everyday Bibles; was their Bible less inspired?

Frank,

Very reasonable questions. I offer 2 points, one practical and the other philosophical...

The first is that an exegete has the potential to do damage by misinterpreting based on limited knowledge of Greek. In my opinion a fairly high level of knowledge is necessary to attain a good level of competence. And I think that much of language study in conservative Christian circles has paid too little attention to general and functional linguistics and too much attention to 19th century diachronic language study.

The second point relates to the original autographs. We don't have them (which much be God's will) and even if we did we would still have arguments about grammar and syntax issues. I agree that they were by definition inerrant and infallible - but I fail to see the significance of distinguishing the inerrancy of the autographs from that of the manuscripts and Bibles we do have. The original manuscript from Paul's hand (or that of Tertius or whomever...) was still written in a human language which is by definition limited by that language.

In addition it seems that many scholars "skirt" issues on inerrancy by saying that the autographs were 100% inerrant but our other manuscripts may have some insignificant scribal errors. The Bibles we have stem from the non-autograph manuscripts so what good does the concept of an inerrant autograph do us? It just seems like a way of avoiding some of the difficulties in defining inerrancy. I admitted before that I am an inerrantist in the way that Dan Wallace is.

And yes I would also love to see an original autograph. I would admire it but I would not be looking to read it and find "extra" revelation in it.

 

[EdSutton]

Could we know if we had discovered an autograph? If an early 1st century Christian document was found today, would there be a way to prove that it was penned by Peter, Luke, John, or Paul? If we possessed an authentic autograph, how would we know?

Also valid questions. And without good answers, I'd say, as well.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Frank,

Very reasonable questions. I offer 2 points, one practical and the other philosophical...

The first is that an exegete has the potential to do damage by misinterpreting based on limited knowledge of Greek. In my opinion a fairly high level of knowledge is necessary to attain a good level of competence. And I think that much of language study in conservative Christian circles has paid too little attention to general and functional linguistics and too much attention to 19th century diachronic language study.

The second point relates to the original autographs. We don't have them (which much be God's will) and even if we did we would still have arguments about grammar and syntax issues. I agree that they were by definition inerrant and infallible - but I fail to see the significance of distinguishing the inerrancy of the autographs from that of the manuscripts and Bibles we do have. The original manuscript from Paul's hand (or that of Tertius or whomever...) was still written in a human language which is by definition limited by that language.

In addition it seems that many scholars "skirt" issues on inerrancy by saying that the autographs were 100% inerrant but our other manuscripts may have some insignificant scribal errors. The Bibles we have stem from the non-autograph manuscripts so what good does the concept of an inerrant autograph do us? It just seems like a way of avoiding some of the difficulties in defining inerrancy. I admitted before that I am an inerrantist in the way that Dan Wallace is.

And yes I would also love to see an original autograph. I would admire it but I would not be looking to read it and find "extra" revelation in it.

Responding to your first point - Can not one do the same real "damage" with "limited knowledge" of English, Spanish, or Mandarin, to list the three most widely spoken languages in the world? And why not Hebrew, and/or Chaldee/Aramaic? Why is Greek the usual "whipping boy" of Biblical languages?

My alter ego personna on the BB is that of Language Cop. Yet I'm fairly sure that there are some here with far greater knowledge of the English langauge (as well some with less), than I happen to possess. And there are dialetical differences, as well. One from England, South Africa, India, Canada, or Australia probably has a different 'dialect' than the "redneck" version that I speak. Which one is 'corrrect'?

Point two. While I guess one could argue some about grammar and syntax, even if posessing the autographs, I would certainly say there would be far fewer 'arguments', were that known. But how do you make the unstated, but implied "leap of faith" from a "limited" 'Biblical language' to one that does not have the same 'limitations'? That is inconsistent, at best.

Try this humorous 'illustration' for what I mean -

Anonymous Christian: "What do you think of the Greek syntax?"

Language Cop: "I think that Greeks should have to pay a 'sin tax', just like every other nationality!"

Point three. It is a known fact that no two known manuscripts are exactly identical in every detail. Does not this fact, alone, signify something? Errata has somehow arrived. And, IMO, some questions are far from "insignificant". I would place the questions of canonicity and whether or not Mk. 16:9-20 are 'genuine' in the 'significant' category, personally. Still, how did the errata that we can see, come to be the case?

FTR, I have read nothing by Dan Wallace, so have not a clue here, nor do I make any pretense at being any sort of a "scholar".

I did one time hear a comment attributed to the late Cornelius van Til, about this, however, as to the underlying "support". He likened this to a case of an individual driving along a road during a rainstorm, and crossing a bridge over a swollen muddy river. He brought out the point that one was not actually 'driving' on the bridge, not even on the asphalt, or the mud overlaying the asphalt, but the tires of the vehicle were in fact making contact with a thin patina of water, on a thin layer of 'mud' on top of the asphalt surface, on the bridge structure, itself. So one was not technically driving "on the bridge", but driving on muddy water, overlaying a few inches of asphalt.

He supposedly then went on to say that it made a great deal of difference, however, as to whether or not the bridge was actually there. I agree! And it is a very important point, IMO.

Ed

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by Deacon:
On the other hand, reading the Bible in a translation is like ‘kissing the bride through the veil’.
Translations are only approximations, at times they fail to fully convey the meaning of the original text (as one writer said, “a translation is exegesis without explanation”); a study of the original languages brings us one step closer to the original source.

Response by Charles Meadows
I cannot agree with this statement completely.

I don't discourage study of the original languages - that has been my biggest hobby for the past 5 years! But it has also taught me that learning languages is not like learning to read Morse code.

I think that NT scholarship in the past 100 or so years has overstated the ability of the average armchair student (like me) to master a language without being immersed in that language as it was spoken. For us here we tend to study Greek analytically - and as a second language. That will no doubt give us insight - but it will not make us native speakers who are able to really understand every colloquial nuance of the language as it really was. This type of mastery is an unattainable goal for many - and this does not comport with the observation that God provided His word for everyone - not just those who happen to have been raised in Greek households or who have natural aptitude for language and ample time to learn.

I agree.
Mastery of the languages is unattainable for most of us.
At best, my studies in the original languages have allowed me to follow the reasoning of those more learned.

But as I study through the Psalms, I can better appreciate the attempts of various translators as they try to convery the poetry of the original language while also communicate the meaning.
Particularly in the Hebrew wisdom books the quote, "translation is like kissing the bride through the veil" is apt.
One cannot fully appreciate the beauty and concise artistry of the psalms without learning at least the rudiments of the language.

Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

In regard to original languages and translation it is interesting to notice that Islam insists that the Qur'an can only be genuinely expressed in Arabic. Here are few quotes from the 'preface' of an English translation of the Qur'an (obtained at no cost to me) --

...This is not the Arabic Qur'an itself. Rather, it is only the translation of its meaning.

...it has remained preserved in both written and oral forms of Arabic...

... Muslims memorize at least parts, chapters, and/or verses from the Qur'an in its original Arabic form, regardless of what their tongue of origin may be.

What you currently have before your is an attempt to illustrate and convey as best as possible the message and meaning of the verses of the Qur'an, verses that are elegantly enveloped in the depths of the Arabic language. However, even the best attempt at translation is not the same as comprehending the Qur'an in its original Arabic.

... we advise you to contact a scholar of Islam... to clarify any passages that may have been difficult to comprehend in English translation.
​

 

[franklinmonroe]

To summarize so far, I think its fair to state that --

1. The autographs are lost to us one way or another; even if we found one, we couldn't verify its authenticity.

2. The situation that the autographs are lost to us must be God's will, (not because God did not "value" them but) perhaps because if we had a recogized autograph it would be so highly prized that it would lead to idolatry.

It is clear that the God-breathed word does NOT only exist in written form, as ink on paper (Psalm 119:11 states that "Thy word have I hidden in my heart..."). Even my human words (the ones I'm composing at this very moment) are being conceived in my thoughts before they reach my fingers, the keyboard, the computer screen, and the readers' eyes. As long as I live with a sound mind, my words will not be destroyed; turning off my computer monitor will not actually make them vanish, and depressing the 'Delete' key will not make them disappear from my consciousness. The Eternal God's words are more perfectly preserved but not necessarily only in the form of alphanumeric characters of human language.

3. Under certain conditions, reading from the original languages can have value over reading English translations.

4. The believer is no way obligated to learn the original languages.

 

[TCGreek]

To summarize so far, I think its fair to state that --

1. The autographs are lost to us one way or another; even if we found one, we couldn't verify its authenticity.

2. The situation that the autographs are lost to us must be God's will, (not because God did not "value" them but) perhaps because if we had a recogized autograph it would be so highly prized that it would lead to idolatry.

It is clear that the God-breathed word does NOT only exist in written form, as ink on paper (Psalm 119:11 states that "Thy word have I hidden in my heart..."). Even my human words (the ones I'm composing at this very moment) are being conceived in my thoughts before they reach my fingers, the keyboard, the computer screen, and the readers' eyes. As long as I live with a sound mind, my words will not be destroyed; turning off my computer monitor will not actually make them vanish, and depressing the 'Delete' key will not make them disappear from my consciousness. The Eternal God's words are more perfectly preserved but not necessarily only in the form of alphanumeric characters of human language.

3. Under certain conditions, reading from the original languages can have value over reading English translations.

4. The believer is no way obligated to learn the original languages.

Good stuff, Franklin. :thumbs:

 

[Charles Meadows]

It is clear that the God-breathed word does NOT only exist in written form, as ink on paper (Psalm 119:11 states that "Thy word have I hidden in my heart..."). Even my human words (the ones I'm composing at this very moment) are being conceived in my thoughts before they reach my fingers, the keyboard, the computer screen, and the readers' eyes. As long as I live with a sound mind, my words will not be destroyed; turning off my computer monitor will not actually make them vanish, and depressing the 'Delete' key will not make them disappear from my consciousness. The Eternal God's words are more perfectly preserved but not necessarily only in the form of alphanumeric characters of human language.

Frank,

Very well said. I was trying to get at this but you have phrased it much better.