6. Affected Texts: Reason for Omission 5 / Footnote

Transcription

1 RESPONSE TO ATTACKS ON THE NIV (2011) OVER SOCIAL MEDIA (Nov. 12, 2015) 1. TASK A) Do a thorough research on the recent attacks on the NIV (2011) by the Social Media. B) Investigate why certain verses in the Gospels, Acts, Romans and 1 John have either been footnoted or omitted altogether. 2. Team: Dr. Samson Obwa, Mr. Jesse Gathura, Mrs. Rose Birenge. 3. Background information 1 Biblica is the worldwide publisher and copyright holder of the NIV. Through licences, Biblica works with carefully selected commercial partners around the world like Zondervan and Hodder Faith. As worldwide publisher, Biblica sponsors the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), who are the scholars solely responsible for the translation and the only ones who can make changes (Italics mine). That committee consists of evangelicals with impeccable credentials 2 In August 1965, the CBT was commissioned by a broad group of Evangelicals to translate the NIV. They meet annually to make any necessary updates, based on best scholarship and most current use of the English language to ensure the meaning of the text is correctly transferred. The CBT led over 80 evangelical scholars in the original translation of the NIV which took over 10 years to complete. The CBT is comprised of 15 leading evangelical scholars from around the world, united in their faith and commitment to carry on the work they began 50 years ago. Together, the NIV translators have hundreds of years experience studying, teaching, and translating the ancient languages of the Bible. [While] the KJV reflected the best scholarship of its day, the NIV [has built] on this remarkable work, and also [benefited] from additional [ancient] manuscripts to inform its scholarship. By putting the content into modern language, the NIV helps people understand the original intent of the Bible. [In this endeavor], the NIV set the standard for translation philosophy in the 20 th century. It enables readers to hear the Bible as it was originally written and understand the Bible as it was originally intended (Italics mine]. In short, the NIV translation is faithful to the source languages and focused on the target language [Italics author s]. 4. Key Endorsements: 3 Many reputable church leaders and [biblical] scholars have endorsed the NIV, conveying an important measure of legitimacy, integrity and validity to the NIV translation. The New International Version follows in the same tradition as the King James Version, although it is tailor-made for the way English is spoken around the world today. The NIV is the most popular translation today because it remains faithful to the original Scriptures while being easy for people to understand. [Italics ours.]

2 Charles F. Stanley, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and Founder, In Touch Ministries. The NIV will now continue to be at the forefront of modern English Bible as the best translation for both public and private use. It combines accuracy and readability better than any other translation. Larry Hart, Professor of Theology, Oral Roberts University. NIV 2011 is a gift to the church. As professor of Old Testament and a translator myself, I understand and appreciate the version s fidelity to proper translation method. Its clear, readable English is accurate to the original languages, communicating the Bible s rich message in a way that will reach people of all ages, education, and spiritual maturity. Produced by the leading evangelical biblical scholars of the day, this Bible is suitable for devotions, deep study, casual reading, group study, and in the pulpit. Tremper Longman III, Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont College. 5. Manuscripts. 4 We do not have original manuscripts. Those that are available differ. This is because they were written by hand and transferred from one generation to another before the ages of printing and photocopying. During this process there were inadvertent changes that came about, resulting in different groups of manuscripts. Sometimes scribes added explanatory paraphrases. Occasionally, if a scribe who was copying saw something strange that looked like it was wrong, he changed it to what he thought it should be. The translators of the King James Version also had to compare and make decisions as to which was probably the best rendering considering the different renderings in the manuscripts. Before the KJV there were several other English Bibles which they used along with the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts that were available at that time. Since the KJV was produced, an enormous amount of archaeological work has been done. Other families of manuscripts were found and many esteemed scholars believe that some of them are older and more accurate than the ones KJV had access to. Often the closer in time to the original a group of manuscripts is, the more accurate they are. Therefore since the late nineteenth century, translators on a very few occasions have taken a path different to what the KJV took. This was when they thought that a word here or a sentence there was not in the original but was added later. No doctrines are compromised and this concerns, a very, very small percentage of the Bible. In their desire to be faithful to God and to the original manuscripts, scholars will keep searching for the best rendering. And if they change something from the KJV it is because of that desire to be true to what they believe the biblical writer wrote. After all, we all want to find out what the original manuscripts said. 6. Affected Texts: Reason for Omission 5 / Footnote a) Matthew 17:21 Not in earlier manuscripts; assimilated the parallel in Mark 9:29. b) Matthew 18: 11 The words in this verse are not found in ancient texts, e.g. Alexandrian; similar words are found in Luke 19:10. c) Matthew 23: 14 Absent in the earliest and best authorities, e.g. the

3 Alexandrian, the Western and the Caesarean type of texts; parallel passages are found in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47. d) Mark 7:16 The verse is absent from Alexandrian witnesses (Aleph, B, L,, etc.) e) Mark 9: 44 The verse is absent in important early witnesses (including Aleph, B, C,W, etc.); were added by copyists from verse 48. f) Mark 11:26 The text is absent from early witnesses; the words were inserted by copyist in imitation of Matthew 6:15. g) Mark 15:28 Absent in the earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text; similar text is found in Luke 22:37. h) Mark 16:9-20 Are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Synaitic, Syriac manuscript etc. i) Luke 17:36 Lacking in the earliest manuscripts (including p 76, Aleph, A, B, l,w,, etc. 69, 75 j) Luke 22: Absent from ancient and widely diversified witnesses as p Aleph a A, B, T, W Syriac 8,etc. k) Luke 23: 17 Omitted from such early witnesses as p 75, A, B. etc. l) John 5:3 Lacking in the oldest and best witnesses (p 66,75, Aleph, A*, C*, L etc. m) John 5:4 Absent from the earliest and best witnesses (p 66,75, Aleph, B, C* D, W supp etc. n) John 7:53-8:11 Absent from such early sources and diverse manuscripts as p 66,75, Aleph, B, L, N, T, W, X, Y etc. o) Acts 8:37 A Western addition, not found in p 45,74, Aleph, A B, C etc. p) Acts 24: 6-8 Early manuscripts do not contain the remainder of v. 6, v. 7, not the first part of v. 8 6 (C.F. Stanley 2009); q) Acts 28:29 A Western expansion not found in the earliest and best witnesses; should not be included in the text 7 (Stanley D. Toussaint,1987, Acts, in The Bible Knowledge commentary. r) Romans 16:24 The earliest and best witnesses omit verse 24. s) 1 John 5:7, 8 The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four late manuscripts (eleventh, twelfth, fourteenth or fifteenth, and sixteenth century);these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin.

4 7. Other Omissions 8 a) Holy Ghost: Ghost does not mean Spirit today, though it may have meant that when the King James Version was written. Therefore it is right for the newer translations to [use] the Holy Spirit rather than the Holy Ghost. b) Calvary: Luke 23: 33 literally says, When they came to the place called Kranion. Kranion is the Greek word for skull. In Aramaic (the language Jesus probably spoke, the word for skull is Golgotha. The Greek manuscripts of Mark 15:22, Matthew 27:33 and John 19:17 transliterate the place s Aramaic name Golgotha, and also supply the Greek translation of the name Kranion (i.e. Skull). Luke, who wrote to a very Greek audience, only uses the Greek translation Kranion without mentioning the Aramaic name Golgotha. The English name Calvary comes from the Latin word for skull, Calvariae. The Latin translations of Luke 23:33 translated Kranion as Calvaiae. This held way for so many centuries as people in the Western world were not permitted to read the Bible in any other language [other] than Latin by the Roman Catholic Church. So Christians began to call the place where Jesus was crucified by the Latin name Calvary rather than the original Aramaic name Golgotha. c) Jehovah: Jehovah is a rendering of YHWH, the name of God, which has the idea of the One who is. We do not know for sure how YHWH should be pronounced, since the original Hebrew Bibles did not write down the vowels. That is why vowels are missing in YHWH. In the centuries before Christ, the Jews did not want to pronounce the name of God, for fear of taking this sacred name in vain; so when they encountered YHWH in the Bible they substituted for it the word Adonai, which means my Lord. Following this lead, most English translator decided to render YHWH as LORD (all caps). Jehovah was a term first used at the start of the 12 th century A.D. It came from the consonants YHWH to which were added the vowels of Adonai; A, O, A, giving us Yahowa. When the Hebrew Y was translated into English the old translators changed the Y to J. 8. Summary a) All the verse(s) or passage(s) that have been omitted or put in parenthesis i) have either not been found in the earliest and best manuscripts, e.g. John 7: 53-8:11; ii) or were spurious, e.g. 1John 5:7-8; iii) or only in later manuscripts, e.g. Acts 28:29 iv) or added by copyists, e.g. Mark 9: 44; 11:46; Acts 8:37; v) or are already found in other books, e.g. Matthew 17:21; Mark 9:29; Matthew 23:14; Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47. b) The omissions or bracketed sections in the NIV are based on the best textual evidence. What we have is the best dynamic equivalent translation in the market. 9. Recommendations a) Based on the above analysis and summary, we accept the NIV (2011) as it is; OR b) We include (in parenthesis) those verses or passages not found in earliest and best manuscripts, e.g. John 7:53-8:11.

5 Humbly submitted by: Rev. Dr. Samson Obwa (PhD, Theology) Jesse Gathura (Biblica) Rose Birenge (Biblica) End Notes 1 Bishop (Dr.) David Oginde (n.d.). The Story of the NIV. 2 Ajith Fernando. (n.d.). Some Thoughts on the Bible Versions controversy. 3 Oginde. 4 Ibid. 5 Bruce M. Metzger. (1964,1968). A textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London. New York: United Bible Societies. 6 Charles F. Stanley, ed. (2009). The Charles F. StanleyLife Principles Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 7 Stanley D. Toussaint. Acts, in The Bible knowledge Commentary. John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck, eds. Victor Books. 8 Fernando. References Aland, Kurt, et al. eds. (1968). The Greek New Testament. 2 nd ed. London; New York; WBS, Stuttgart, West Germany. Bruce, F.F. (1951). The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. London. Hendriksen, William. (1973). New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Lane, William L. (1974). TNTC on the New Testament: Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Metzger, Bruce M. (1964; 2 nd ed., 1968). The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford; 2 nd ed., 1 Metzger, Bruce M. (1971). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London. New York: United Bible Societies. Stanley, Charles C., ed. (2009). The Charles F. Stanley Life Principles Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. The Holy Bible, NIV. (2011), Colorado Springs: Biblica.

6 Addendum 1 A. Ancient Greek Manuscripts There are about 5000 known Greek manuscripts today. Here are a few examples: 1. The Alexandrian Text (early in the 2 nd century) is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original; characteristics: brevity and austerity; it is shorter than the text of other forms. 2. Until recently, the two chief witnesses to the Alexandrian text were codex Vaticanus (B) and codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), parchment manuscripts dating from about the middle of the fourth century AD. 3. Bordmer Papyri ( p66 and p75 ), copied about the end of the 2 nd or the beginning of the 3 rd century. 4. The Western text (widely current in Italy and Gaul, North Africa, including Egypt), can be traced back to the 2 nd century. It was used by Marcion, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian); codex Bezae (D), 5 th or 6 th century. 5. The chief characteristic of Western readings is fondness for paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted or inserted in order to harmonize or to enrich a narrative by including traditional apocryphal material. 6. The Caesarian Text, which could have originated in Egypt, was brought Origen to Caesarea, where it was used by Eusebius and others. From Caesarea it was carried to Jerusalem, where it was used by Cyril and Armenians who, at an early date, had a colony in Jerusalem. 7. The Byzantine Text (the Syrian Text, the latest). Its chief characteristic is lucidity and completeness. The framers of this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading, and to harmonize divergent parallel passages. It is best represented today by codex Alexandrinus (in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation. The Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the authoritative form of text and was the most widely circulated and accepted. B. Early Editions of the New Testament 1. After Gutenberg s printing press made the production of books more rapid and therefore cheaper than was possible through copying by hand, it was the debased Byzantine text that became the standard form of the New Testament in printed editions. 2. The first published edition of the printed Greek Testament, and issued at Basel in 1516, was prepared by Desiderius Erasmus, the Dutch humanist scholar. For the greater part of his text, he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts, dating from about 12 th century, and Jerome s Latin Vulgate.

7 3. Martin Luther and William Tyndale used the 2 nd edition (1519) of Erasmus s work as the basis of their translations of the New Testament into German (1522) and into English (1525) 4. Robert Etienne (Stephanus) produced at Paris his third edition, the edition Regia, a magnificent folio edition. It is the first printed Greek Testament to contain a critical apparatus. 5. Stephanus s fourth edition (Geneva 1551), which contains two Latin versions (the Vulgate and that of Erasmus), is noteworthy because it is for the first time the text of the New Testament was divided into numbered verses (Italicss, ours). 6. Theodore Beza published no fewer than nine editions of the Greek Testament between 1565 and 1604, and a tenth edition appeared posthumously in His work is important because they tended to popularize and stereotype what came to be called the Textus Receptus. 7. The translators of the Authorized or King James Bible of 1611 made large of Beza s editions of and It is the two Cambridge scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (1881) 2 whose influential work became the basis for other translations. 9. With the discovery of several New Testament manuscripts much older than any that had hitherto been available, it has become possible to produce editions of the New Testament that approximate ever more closely to what is regarded as the wording of other original documents. 1 Bruce M. Metzger. (1971). A Textual Commentary on the New Testament. 2 B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (1881; 2 nd ed., 1896). The New Testament in the Original Greek; [vol.ii] Introduction [and] Appendix (Cambridge and London). Dr. Samson Obwa 14/11/2015.