The solution: A Monday With Answers.
Throughout the week, I will be taking/collecting questions. Or, as is the case for now with a nascent blog, I will be actively seeking out questions. Hopefully these first few “Mondays with Answers” will be relevant (maybe even practical) questions.
This week’s question: Why are there so many different versions of the Bible and what makes one more accurate than the others?
This is a question I found perusing the internet. When I started thinking about it a little more, I think this is a common question that a lot of people don’t realize that they have. How many people have really stopped to think about why some bibles read differently than others? This is not to question anybody’s devotion to God or faithfulness to Sacred Scriptures. This is really just a question on the mechanics of what makes one version different than another.
The bottom-line answer: the differences have to do with translations.
This post won't go through all the different versions exhaustively. Instead, out of brevity, I will hit on the broad (general) differences. There will be principles brought up, though, that will more than likely be an explanation that applies to specific differences that may not be covered. If you have a question about a specific difference that wasn't covered feel free to ask. Please keep in mind that this isn't intended to be an academic dissertation so some liberty will be taken to try to keep this as brief as possible.
First, there is a general difference between a Catholic Bible and most Protestant Bibles. Catholic scriptures are the exact same in substance as what you will find in Protestant Scriptures. They are essentially of the same sources. That said, the Catholic Bible has a larger Old Testament with 7 more books called the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants know as “Apocryphal” books. I understand I may have introduced a few words that aren’t necessarily in everyday use, so here is a quick background:
NewAdvent.org: The Greek kanon means primarily a reed, or measuring-rod: by a natural figure it was employed by ancient writers both profane and religious to denote a rule or standard.So the word canon refers to a “regulated and defined collection” typically used in the context of theological or official “church” writings. New Advent continues:
The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. … It would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.The derivation of the word Apocrypha comes from the Greek word apokryphos, which means “hidden.” In this context Protestants use it to refer to “non-canonical” books. Catholics use a different term because “apocrypha” has a historical use of that term that goes back beyond the Protestant Reformation. To read more on this use of the word click here. This is another article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and is a thorough albeit a little difficult read.
The point of contention between the Catholic and Protestant listing of the Old Testament works has its roots with Luther early in the beginning of the Protestant revolt, and his relegating (among other New Testament books) the listed 7 books to an appendix in his translation of the bible.
Luther’s intent with his translation of the bible was to translate directly from Hebrew. At the time, the bible standard was what is known as the Latin Vulgate which was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. St. Jerome was a renown scripture scholar of his time (4th Century), and coined the following quote regarding Scripture: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Jerome was commissioned to do essentially what Luther set out to do: to create an accurate translation of scriptures as close to the source as possible.
Only, Jerome was dealing with a different problem. The issue that the Church was dealing with in the 4th century was that the Latin scriptures that they had were handwritten copies of copies of copies of...(well, you get my point). By the 4th century the Latin texts that they DID have varied from one another, and were to the point of being unreliable from possible additions and/or mistakes by copyists. Jerome had at his disposal Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the books of the Old Testament that were even considered ancient at HIS time. Jerome cross-referenced his work between these sources that he had available to him.
Notice that a new element entered this post: Greek? I thought we were dealing with Hebrew. How is a Greek translation even considered close to an “original” source?
Okay before we go there, a quick inventory of Scripture Translations that we have talked about: Hebrew OT, Greek NT, Latin Vulgate, Luther Bible (German).
Enter: Septuagint.
NewAdvent.org: The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary centre was Alexandria. The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era, and were therefore made by Christian hands; nevertheless scholars generally admit that these faithfully represent the Old Testament as it was current among the Hellenist or Alexandrian Jews in the age immediately preceding Christ.
The Septuagint (LXX translation) is a Greek translation of OT scriptures that dates back to 300 B.C. Before Christ, the Septuagint was accepted and recognized as a legitimate text by Jews in all the Greek-speaking countries, and helped spread the idea/expectation of a Messias to the Gentiles.
Simplistically, Luther did not refer to the legitimacy of the Septuagint because, at the time, there were no ancient Hebrew manuscripts that could support the additional books that were included in the Greek version. And, because there were no Hebrew manuscripts, it couldn't be considered as "authoritative" as the protocanonical books. Since then, in the 1950's, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery found manuscripts dating as early as 408 B.C. that have the Greek books in question in Hebrew.
Clearly, there is a lot of debate (that even continues to this day) as to whether the "extra" books should be included in the bible or not. The spirit of this post is not intended to advocate one over the other so much as it is to explain what those differences are and where they come from. That said, I will not try to hide which one I favor (and given the context of the Blog, I don't think it would take much to figure it out).
Beyond the major difference (7 "extra" books or not), there are still differences. You can even find differences between Bibles that number the same books. Some read relatively easily, some seem clunky... while others read like they are antiquated, in old English. The latter is pretty easy to explain, in that they are translations that hold true to the time they were originally translated (i.e. 1611 KJV, or Douay Rheims Bible).
But what about those that read "clunky" vs. those that ready colloquially? At the heart of that question is the philosophy that goes into the translation: "formal equivalence" vs. "dynamic equivalence." Formal equivalence translations try to give a translation that is as literal to the original text as possible. Dynamic equivalence translations give the translator more liberty in the translation to make a more readable translation -- so long as the meaning of the text is preserved.
Each has its disadvantages, and each has its uses.
Finally, to the last question: "what makes one version more accurate than the other?"
Ultimately, we have different versions of the Bible because of different translations... which means an evaluation of accuracy is contingent on interpretation. Personally, this answer is not satisfying enough. In other words, without an appeal to an outside authority, no one can subjectively and definitively say that "this" is the most accurate as opposed to "that" one. I don't say that the 7 "extra" books should be included in the bible because of the NT references, the history of translations, the closeness to Hebrew, etc. in and of itself. Those arguments help, but in the end... I think as such because God became man, gave man authority - guided by the Holy Spirit - to build His church, and His Church determined as much.
Call me simple-minded... ;) Maybe that will be a question for next week!
God Love You!
A good audio on the Bible:
EWTN's The Journey Home: The Canon of Scripture
No comments:
Post a Comment