Acts 8:37

     In the King James Version Acts 8:37 reads, "And Philip said, 'If thou believest with
all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said , I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God." This verse is not found in most modern translations, e.g. ASV-1901,
RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV-2011. Some translations include the passage in a
footnote with the explanation that it is likely an interpolation, that is, an insertion in or
addition to the original text. People often assume  that the omission of a passage found
in the King James Version is an instance of subtracting from the word of God. How
can omitting a passage that was not in the original text be equal to subtracting from
the word of God? Omitting  Acts 8:37 from the English text is not equivalent to saying
there is no need for a confession prior to being immersed.  Other passages teach that
one must confess that Jesus is the Son of God. (Rom. 10:10; 1 Tim. 6:12) The issue is
whether the textual evidence is for or against the  inclusion of Acts 8:37 as a part of 
God's word.

     The passage doesn't appear till the 6th century in the manuscripts. It is not found
in p45, a 3rd century manuscript, or in p74, a seventh century manuscript. It is not in
Sanaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or Ephraemi Rescriptus, a 5th century manuscript.
It is not found in the ancient versions, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic. The ancient patristic
writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyrprian, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, and Augustine
add the reading with a little variation. The Byzantine text omits the reading. Erasmus
included   the  passage  in  his  critical  editions  because  he  concluded  that  it  had
inadvertently been omitted from the textual tradition.  As  a  result  of his inclusion, it
became a part of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.
                                                                                                                R. Daly

Copyright 2012
                                                                                
  
 

Yahweh In Translation

     I recently read an article by a preacher in which he objected to the use of Yahweh,
the  personal  name  of  the  deity,  in  translating  the  tetragrammaton  (YHWH)  in
the approximately 6828 times the term occurs in the Hebrew text. His reasoning is
that the use of Yahweh in translation tends to be confusing to most people because
they are not accustomed to hearing and/or reading the sacred name.

     First, I  doubt  that  the  degree  of confusion that he alleges really exists. The
American Standard  Version  published  in  1901  made  a  salient  effort  for
consistency by translating YHWH with the hybrid term Jehovah in all of its occurrences.
Some other English versions also use Jehovah for the Tetragrammaton. The KJV even
uses  Jehovah  a  few times. (cf. Gen. 22:14; Ex. 6:3; 17:15; Jdg. 6:24; Psa. 83:18;
Isa. 12:2; 26:4)  Furthermore, the  Jerusalem  Bible  uses  Yahweh  in thousands of
places, and  the  Holman  Christian  Standard  Bible  uses  it  over 600 times in the
Old Testament.

     Second,  even    if    the   use  of   Yahweh   initially confuses  those  who  lack
familiarity  with  the  name, is  it  not be the duty  of  preachers, who ought to be
exegetes of the sacred scriptures to explain its meaning and use? Do we not do this
with other words and concepts with  which  people  may not be familiar? I believe
much of the confusion regarding the issue of translating the Bible, is the direct result
of those who know failing to adequately inform those who do not know ! There are
ways of teaching our people the reasons why some things are translated the way they
are, and why some things need changing without being too technical and sounding
too academic. The bottom line is, we have the duty to teach people so they can be
informed. (2 Tim. 2:15) We who preach need to stay abreast of important issues,
and Bible translation is such an issue. There  is  no  excuse  for  spiritual and mental
laziness.

     In my judgment, there is one thing confusing about the way most modern versions
address the issue of translating YHWH. It is this: where YHWH occurs in the text, they
put   the  word  LORD   in  all  capitals, except  in  those  instances  when  Adonai
(lord, ruler) and YHWH appear together. When they do occur together, YHWH is
translated GOD. Most people never notice such, and when they do, they have no idea
why Lord with lower case letters appears, and why at other times it is LORD with all
upper case letters. Then at other times we read God with lower case letters and in other
instances it appears as GOD with all upper case letters. Now that is what confuses many
people. They are unaware that such variety is an "expedient" used by translators to
differentiate Lord and God from YHWH.

     So, why not use Yahweh  in  the  places  where  YHWH  appears  in  the  text of
the Old Testament? Why not equip oneself to teach the people about the sacred name
as    we    teach   them   about   words   like   immerse,  congregation,  hades,  and
countless other words and concepts in our writing, preaching, and teaching?

                                                                                                               R. Daly

Copyright 2011

     

ESV or NASB?

     I am occasionally asked, "Which translation is better, the ESV or the NASB?"
Both are excellent translations. They approach translation "theory" from slightly
different perspectives. The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation, meaning it
attempts word for word correspondence when possible, but it does not hesitate
to be "dynamic" or "interpretive" when necessary. The NASB leans more
toward the formal equivalence method of translation. In this sense it is generally
more of a modified literal text than the ESV. The translation philosophy of the
NASB makes it slightly more difficult (though not impossible) to read than the
ESV. The NASB is generally closer in "form" to the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek texts, and as a result some of its phrasing is awkward. Neither
translation is strictly literal. If they were, they would not be understandable to
most readers of English.

     The NASB tends to pay relatively close attention to Greek verbs and
participles. For instance, in Colossians 3:1 Paul uses the word zeteite, which
is a present active imperative. Most English versions say, "seek," but the NASB
translates it as "keep seeking." Some scholars call this over translation, but it
is useful to the Greek student and non Greek student alike, as it shows what is
going on in the Greek text. Examples of this kind in the NASB can be multiplied.

     The ESV is slightly more accurate than the NASB in that it sometimes makes
better textual choices because its lexical base is better. For example, the NASB
translates the noun paidagogos as "tutor" in Galatians 3:24 and 25. This choice
was likely influenced by older Greek lexicons such as Abbott-Smith's Manual
Greek Lexicon Of The New Testament. A paidagogos was not a tutor, but
was frequently a slave who was entrusted with the care and supervision of a male
child, hence a guardian, guide, custodian, disciplinarian. This is reflected by
modern Greek lexicons (BDAG, Trenchard, etc.) and  modern versions of the
scriptures. (cf. RSV, ESV, NIV, NRSV)  There are several instances wherein
the NASB's textual choices are deficient, but to its credit, the marginal notes
often contain the correct translation. It seems to me that the correct choices
should be in the text.

     There are also instances where both the ESV and the NASB miss the same
point in translation. In Acts 19 Paul came to Ephesus and found some disciples.
He asked them "Into what then were you immersed?" They replied, "Into the
immersion of John." Paul taught them about Jesus and on hearing this "they were
immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus." (verses 3 and 5) Both the ESV and the
NASB say they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Both translations
acknowledge "into" is what the text literally says in their footnotes and marginal
notes. The Greek  preposition  used  is  "eis"  in each of the three instances in
the context. The ASV says "into" in all three instances.

     A person can learn what to do to be saved by diligently studying both the ESV
and the NASB. They compliment each other in many ways. Study from both texts.
The ESV is more readable in part because it is not as literal as the NASB. The
NASB, like the ASV-1901, is a good study bible because of its closeness to the
underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The marginal notes in the NASB
are among the best found in any English version of the scriptures!
                                                                                                         R. Daly
Copyright 2011 

Galatians 5:6 In The English Standard Version

     In the English Standard Version of the Bible, Galatians 5:6 says, "For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith
working through love."  The sentence in the Greek New Testament reads, "en gar 
Christo Iesou oute peritome ti ischuei oute akrobustia alla pistis di agapes
energoumene." The translation of the phrase is, "For in Christ Jesus neither
circumcision  nor  uncircumcision  has any power, but  faith working through love."
(Daly's New Testament Translation)

     I was recently asked," Is the phrase translated 'but only faith working through
love' (Gal. 5:6) in the ESV accurately translated? " The answer is no, it does not
accurately reflect what the Greek text says or means. The addition of the word
"only" is an unfortunate and unjustified rendering. The text simply does not say
"only faith" or "faith only."

     The ESV is a revision of the RSV-1971 and not even the RSV adds the word
"only" to this text. Neither the KJV, ASV, NASB, or the HCSB add the word
"only" in the Galatians' passage. They remain true to the original text in this place,
and they do not reflect a theological slant in their translation of the passage.

     Contextually, Paul warns against being "entangled again in a yoke of bondage."
(5:1) His argument is, it is not works of the law by which one is justified, so the
act of physical circumcision is without power. The hope of righteousness is not
through circumcision or uncircumcision, "but faith working through love." The
Calvinist does not accept the efficacy of Christ's blood through immersion because
he sees it as a work. Yet, the very people to whom Paul wrote had been immersed
into Christ. (Gal. 3:27) Therefore, Paul's teaching about faith, grace, and works
must not be interpreted in a way that excludes immersion in order to be saved from
sin!

     Does this mean that the ESV is a bad translation? No. It means that the ESV like
the KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, etc. has passages that need to
be weighed against the original texts and corrected. The goal of Bible translation is
to give mankind the word of the living God in a way that is both understandable and
accurate. We should expect no less.
                                                                                                                 R. Daly
Copyright 2011 

Modified-Literal Translations Are Still Useful

     It is a well known fact that most of the translations that have been produced
during   the  late  twentieth  and early twenty first centuries  are  either  paraphrases  
(Williams' N.T., Goodspeed's N.T. , Good News For Modern Man, The 
Message, etc.) or   idiomatic (NIV,   New  Living  Translation,  TNIV,   
NIV-2011).  One reason for this  shift  is  due  to  the  discovery of the papyri
fragments in the late 1800's into the early and mid 1900's. We  have  learned from
the papyri that the language  of    the   New   Testament    was   the   common  
language   of   the first  century  world. It  was  not  classical  Greek, but  koine,
that  is, the dialect spoken  by  the  "ordinary"  citizen of the ancient world. God
wants people to have his word in their language.

     I believe that most modified literal translations are readable and understandable.
It    is    sometimes    said    that    the    paraphrases    and idiomatic versions are
more   accurate  because   they   are   more   understandable.   This viewpoint
assumes   that   understandability   and   accuracy   are   synonymous, or at least
that understandability leads to or implies accuracy. This is not necessarily true.It
is possible for a translation to be "understandable" and not be a faithful representation
of what  the  original  says.  An  example  is  the  New World Translation (of  the
Jehovah's Witness organization). Though  it  is  one of  the  more  literal  English
translations it incorrectly renders John 1:1 in this way, "In the beginning the Word
was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." This is not what the
Greek text says, nor is it what the text means. On the other end of the translation
spectrum is the Contemporary English Version, a paraphrase that renders
Romans 1:17 in the following manner, "The good news tells how God accepts
everyone who has faith, but only those who have faith." This rendering is
understandable, but it  is  not  what  the  Greek  text  says,  nor  is  it  what  the
passage means. It is a misleading commentary on the text, even though it is
expressed in modern English. My point is this, just because a translation is written
in understandable English does  not  ensure  its  faithfulness  to  the  Greek  text. It
is also true that modified literal versions are not necessarily inaccurate just because
they may be more "stiff" or "stilted."

     One of the problems with some modified literal versions is their archaic language.
An example of this is the ASV-1901. It  uses  the  archaic  forms  that are found in
the King James Version. It also has a large number of inverted negatives. For
example,  Matthew 19:17 says, "And  he  said  unto  him,  Why  askest  thou  me
concerning what is good? One there is who is good..." The verse can be translated
in the following way and still maintain its modified literal faithfulness to the Greek
text, "And he said to him, 'Why do you ask me concerning what is good? There is
one who is good...' " Even with its problems with archaic language, the ASV remains
an excellent study bible. The NASB-1977, though not as literal as the ASV is
nevertheless a good study bible  because  of  its  closeness  to  the  Hebrew,
Aramaic,  and  Greek  texts. The  NASB-1977 is generally a better exegetical tool
than the NASB-95 Update because it is closer to the original texts. The NASB-95
has dropped many of   the conjunctions and inferential particles that are found in the
Hebrew and Greek texts, and that are found in the ASV and NASB-1977. This
was done in part to enhance the readability of the NASB, but doing so has made
the NASB-95 Update a less useful study bible.

     The precision of the ASV is its most remarkable feature. It was designed to be
an honest representation of what is in the original texts of scripture. It isn't perfect,
but in spite of its shortcomings, it remains the best of the modified literal versions of
sacred scripture. The NASB-1977 is relatively close to the ASV. When the
translators of the NASB thought a strictly literal translation might be misleading, they
usually have a marginal note or footnote that contains the literal translation, and the
literal translation found in the marginal notes is often what is found in the text of the
ASV. The footnotes of the  ASV and the marginal notes of the NASB are a wealth
of  information! The English Standard Version (ESV) is not as modified literal as
the  NASB, but it is slightly better   in   that  its  textual  choices  are  sometimes
more  accurate.  The   ASV, RSV, NASB-1977, NRSV, ESV,  and to a lesser
extent the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) are probably the best
modified literal     versions   currently  published.    They  compliment  each  other
extremely well, and they can be understood. A person can learn God's plan of
salvation by using one or all of them. (John 3:16; 8:24; Hebrews 11:6; Acts 3:19;
17:30; Romans 10:10; 1 Timothy 6:12; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:58;
2 Peter 1: 3-10)
                                                     
                                                                                                            R. Daly

Copyright 2011

Benefits of Idiomatic Translations

     Idiomatic translations are those that seek to convey the "meaning" of the words
in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. They are sometimes called meaning based
translations. Notable examples of idiomatic translations are: the  Today's English
Version, New International Version, God's Word, New Living Translation,  
Today's New International Version, Holman Christian Standard Version,
and the New International Version 2011. 

     Idiomatic translations, like modified-literal ones, are useful in many ways but
I will only innumerate a few points that represent the whole.

     (1) Idiomatic translations are generally easier to read and comprehend than
the modified-literal ones. They use modern speech and tend to avoid the
awkward phrasing that sometimes characterizes the more literal versions.

     (2) Idiomatic translations often clarify ancient idioms for modern
readers. For example, the ASV, true to the form of the Hebrew text says
Yahweh gave the children of Israel "cleanness of teeth." (Amos 4:6) The
phrase is an idiom meaning, God has sent famine. The NIV 2011 interprets
it with the phrase "empty stomachs." An example of a N.T. idiom is the phrase
"the bosom of the Father." (Jno. 1:18) ASV. It means the closest intimacy,
fellowship, or relationship. The NIV 2011 explains the idiom to mean "closest
relationship."

     (3) Idiomatic translations also serve as reasonably good commentaries
because they emphasize meaning. They sometimes explain words that would
be obscure to modern readers.

     (4) They also tend to avoid the use of archaic expressions, phrasing, and
word order that confuses the "average" reader.

     (5) They are generally easier to memorize because the translators ask,
"How do we say in English what we see in the Hebrew and Greek texts."

                                                                                                    RD

Copyright 2011

Some Benefits of Modified-Literal Translations

     In this post I would like to innumerate some benefits of modified-literal
translations  of  the  Bible. Examples  of  these  types of  translations are: the
King James Version, American Standard Version, New American 
Standard Version, New King James Version, and to a lesser extent
the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version.
The most recent modified-literal translation of note is the English Standard 
Version. It stands between the Revised Standard and the New American 
Standard Versions in literal quality.

     There are several things about modified-literal translations that make them
very useful, but I will briefly discuss only a few points that are representative
of the whole.

     (1.) Modified-literal translations of the sacred scriptures are generally closer
in form to the original texts, and therefore make better study bibles. They
attempt to show the student what is going on in the Hebrew and Greek texts. 

     (2.) Modified-literal translations are generally built on the actual words of the
Hebrew and Greek texts. This is important to the person who believes the
words in the original texts were breathed out by God. ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17;
1 Cor. 2:10-13)

     (3.) Modified-literal translations do not take as many "liberties" with the text
as other  kinds of versions. As  a  result  they  allow  the  student to determine
what the text teaches based on the actual words that are used.

     (4.) Modified-literal translations are generally not as "wordy" as those that are
more idiomatic. They try to avoid supplying "unnecessary" words to the text.
They often attempt "word for word" equivalency, though such is not possible
one hundred percent of the time.

     (5.) Nothing replaces a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, but not everyone
will or can learn the original languages of scripture. Therefore, the modified-
literal translations give the non linguist the best access to the form of the original.

                                                                                                       RD
Copyright 2011