Part 8 (2/2)

Moreover, the translation of the KJV was not confined to the Greek texts but also used previous English translations, including the Tyndale Bible. One of the earliest translators of the Bible into English, William Tyndale (d. 1536), was burned at the stake for ”heresy.” Yet, Tyndale's translation has been used in the creation of every significant English rendition of the Bible since his time, including the King James Version.1 Was Tyndale inspired? If so, why would G.o.d let him be hideously killed? If he was not inspired, how can the English translations such as the KJV, based in considerable part on his work, themselves be considered inspired?

As one example of where the differences between ancient ma.n.u.scripts/authorities have led to some ”grave defects” in the translation, in Mark 9, verses 44 and 46 are omitted from the RSV, which says they are likewise omitted from ”the best ancient authorities.” RSV gives its reason for excluding these verses as the fact that they are ”identical with verse 48.” These three identical verses are reproduced three times in the King James Version as: ”Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Hence, some of these ancient authorities carelessly reproduced verses in the same paragraph, which was not very difficult in consideration of the run-on Greek text they were originally using. Or, if these repet.i.tions were originally intended, how could the editors of the RSV (and others) remove these verses? One or both of these editions must not be correct.

Regarding the KJV, the RSV continues: The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the acc.u.mulated errors of fourteen centuries of ma.n.u.script copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval ma.n.u.scripts....

We now possess many more ancient ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text...2 One result of this need for revision is the Revised Standard Version itself, which bases its translation upon the King James Bible and ”the most ancient authorities,” i.e., the Greek codices. Yet, how do we know which of the Greek texts is correct, as they differ significantly? If the Holy Spirit was inspiring the translators of the KJV, why weren't they shown the most ancient Greek ma.n.u.scripts instead, if these are more correct and closer to the originals of G.o.d's Word? In fact, why would the Holy Spirit allow the originals or autographs to be destroyed in the first place? Why don't we possess the pristinely and miraculously preserved texts written by the very hands of the evangelists themselves?

If these most ancient Greek texts are not more correct than the later ones, why are more modern translations based on them? It is well known that the most ancient ma.n.u.scripts ”contain scribal errors of all sorts.” In fact, one of the oldest MS fragments, P46, contains the ”largest percentage of blunders on record!” Under these circ.u.mstances, it is surprising that anything in the New Testament can be known concretely and that definitive statements concerning biblical inerrancy can be logically and honestly made.

Moreover, the numerous Latin translations were so varied and unreliable that St. Jerome was commissioned to create an authoritative Latin text (Vulgate) from reputable Greek ma.n.u.scripts.1 Again, the KJV was also based in part on the Latin Vulgate, which few Christian evangelicals or fundamentalists would claim was inspired.

Even with the KJV revealing itself to be a large mess, fundamentalist proponents of it contradictorily claim that it does indeed represent the ”originals” or autographs of the biblical texts.2 One wonders if these individuals who make such definitive declarations-expressing their own opinions, in fact-are themselves inspired such that we should take their word on it?

The King James fundamentalists also argue that the 17th-century English of the KJV is ”not archaic” and that changing it const.i.tutes an ”a.s.sault” on G.o.d's Word!3 What about translations into other languages, if even other English renditions are no good? Or, do all the rest of the people in the world need to learn King James English in order to be saved? Why would G.o.d make the salvation of millions of people's souls so difficult, if not impossible? It seems a rather cruel thing to do to the millions who will never learn English or who are illiterate in any language. If only the King James English translation is inspired, why bother translating the Bible into any other language? Are all the missionaries who create and pa.s.s out Bibles in hundreds of different languages completely wasting their time? Are these missionaries not sincere Christians, believing as they do in the translations they are sharing? The arrogance expressed in the KJV fundamentalist response to this quandary ranks up there with Lucifer's quest to take over heaven: ”G.o.d has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job-convert the world.... Thus in choosing English in which to combine His two Testaments, G.o.d chose the only language which the world would know.”4 After scientifically a.n.a.lyzing the ma.n.u.script tradition and the creation of the King James Bible, it seems incredible and egregious that someone could maintain the following sentiment expressed by a KJV fundamentalist writer: The ma.n.u.scripts represented by the King James Bible have texts of the highest quality. So we see that the best ma.n.u.scripts are those used by the King James translators.1 This position strikes one as obstinate, unscientific and unreasonable, but is little different from the maintenance by other fundamentalist Christians that the Bible as a whole is inerrant, that the gospel tale is 100% factually accurate, and that Christianity is the ”only true religion.”

In addition, the argument maintaining ”inspired originals” is not very appealing, for the reason proffered by Dr. Ehrman that we do not possess the originals. Regarding the doctrine of ”inspired originals,” KJV fundamentalist and evangelical Christian Daryl Coats asks: If the Bible were inspired only in the original ma.n.u.scripts, no one today has an inspired Bible. If that is true, what makes your religion any different from that of the Buddhist, or Hindu, or Moslem, or Mormon?2 Indeed, is it truly honest and righteous for any one culture to insist that its ”holy book” alone is the ”Word of G.o.d?” In reality, none of these texts can be scientifically proved to be the ”inerrant Word of G.o.d.”

Born of a Virgin?

An exegesis of the texts reveals that despite the claims of inerrancy, there were problems with the translation of the Bible even before it was rendered into English. For example, the a.s.sertion that Jesus's mother, Mary, was a ”virgin” when she gave birth ranks, of course, as one of those miracles that less credulous people have difficulty accepting. When the scripture cited as ”prophecy fulfilled” in Jesus's nativity is examined, however, it seems that Mary's virginity may be a contrivance based on an erroneous or loose translation, not on a historical fact. In the original Hebrew ”prophecy” at Isaiah 7:14 to describe the individual who would conceive the son named Immanuel, the term used is almah, which means a ”young woman” but not necessarily a virgin. The apology for this problem is that the word almah in the Bible invariably refers to an ”unmarried woman,” which automatically means she is a ”virgin.” Granted that in some places in ancient times the chances of that situation may have been more likely, the fact will remain that a ”maiden” is not necessarily a ”virgin.” If almah can or should be translated every time as ”virgin,” why is there a separate word in Hebrew for ”virgin,” i.e., bethulah? According to Strong's Concordance, ”virgin” is the only definition for bethulah (H1330), whereas almah (H5959) is defined as: 1) virgin, young woman a) of marriageable age b) maid or newly married From this definition, it would seem inaccurate to state that an almah is only an ”unmarried woman” and/or a virgin, as is a.s.serted by Christian apologists. In this instance, the KJV translates almah as ”virgin,” while the RSV renders it ”young woman.” The three other instances in the KJV where the word almah is translated as ”virgin” occur in one peculiar place regarding the mundane activity of drawing water, as in ”when the virgin cometh forth to draw” (Gen 24:43), and in the very sensual Song of Songs (Sgs 1:3, 6:8). Other examples of almah are translated in the KJV as ”maid” (Ex 2:8; Pro 30:19) or ”damsel” (Ps 68:25). Where the term bethulah is used in the Hebrew, emphasis often is given to make certain it is understood that the individual in question had ”not known man by lying with him.” No such clarification is given for almah, and it appears unreasonable and unscientific to insist that it be translated as ”virgin” in all instances, especially in the case of a pregnant female! Moreover, in all other uses in Isaiah (23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5), the author utilizes the term bethulah to describe a ”virgin”-if at verse 7:14 he also meant ”virgin,” why use the term almah and not bethulah?

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, does in fact render the word almah as parthenos, which means ”virgin.”1 As we have seen, many of the scriptures cited or quoted in the gospels came from the Septuagint, from which the evangelists evidently got their ideas, not from a factual state of virginity in a historical Mary. Moreover, the fact that the Septuagint had been in existence for at least two centuries prior to the Christian era demonstrates that the virgin-birth motif preceded Christ's purported advent. It may be that the translators of the Septuagint and those who used the Greek rendering of Isaiah 7:14 in the New Testament were attempting to compete with the claimants of virgin or divine births of other G.o.ds, kings and heroes around the Mediterranean and elsewhere.2 Rather than a.s.suming that a Jewish virgin became pregnant without intercourse and gave birth to the Almighty Lord of the cosmos, would it not be more logical and plausible to suggest that this pa.s.sage was used as part of the messianic blueprint by the creators of the gospel texts?

Indeed, we could likewise aver that the meaning in Matthew is not necessarily reflective of that in Isaiah: To wit, Matthew insists that a virginal Mary conceived and gave birth without intercourse, while, in fact, the original Isaiah says no such thing but simply that a virgin will conceive, which is quite possible. It does not say ”without intercourse” or that she remained a virgin and still gave birth. Matthew's interpretation is not wholly influenced by Isaiah's scripture but appears to incorporate the tales of virgin births in other myths and legends.

”Children,” ”Deeds” or ”Results?”

Another translation oddity occurs at Matthew 11:19, concerning the Greek term teknon, which the RSV translates as ”children.” Different versions render teknon variously as ”children,” ”deeds,” ”results,” ”actions” and ”works.” The same pericope is related at Luke 7:35, using the same word teknon; yet, the translators uniformly render it as ”children.” Why, if the Holy Spirit was inspiring the translators, would the translations of the same term not be uniform, conveying the precise, same meaning, instead of leaving us to guess? If the Holy Spirit is looking over the shoulders of the translators, would not each know what word the others had used? This is but one of numerous instances where the terms chosen by translators vary-why would G.o.d or the Holy Spirit induce such discrepancies?

Jesus the Carpenter?

One more translation example reveals how a story element previously determined to be part of a ”biography” of a real person called Jesus Christ is in fact questionable as to whether or not it was a true characteristic of his life. To wit, when the texts are examined closely it is clear that characterizing Jesus as a ”carpenter”-a widely held belief-has very little basis in the literary record, and none in the historical or archaeological records. In the first place, the Greek word commonly translated as ”carpenter”-tekton-could refer to an artisan or worker in other trades as well, such as a smith, builder or mason. Per Strong's (G5045), tekton means the following: 1) a worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner, builder a) a s.h.i.+p's carpenter or builder 2) any craftsman, or workman a) the art of poetry, maker of songs 3) a planner, contriver, plotter a) an author We have no description in the New Testament of Jesus sawing wood or doing any other carpentry work specifically. In fact, this designation of Christ as a tekton can be found in the Bible only once, at Mark 6:3, in the pericope where Jesus returns home to astound the people he grew up with. Firstly, we would need to ask why, if some of these people were around when Jesus was born, surrounded by prodigies and wonders, including a clear designation as the messiah, they would be astonished by him as an adult. Secondly, in this same pericope Matthew (13:55) has the crowd calling Jesus the ”son of the tekton,” which, again, could be a carpenter, a smith, a mason or another type of worker. Luke portrays the folks as labeling Jesus simply the ”son of Joseph.” Furthermore, there is evidence-from the early church father Origen in the third century, for one-that this scripture about the tekton in Mark was not present in the original text. In Contra Celsus (VI, 36), Origen remarks that ”in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.” Confirming Origen's a.s.sertion, this term tekton as an appellation of Jesus does not appear in the earliest ma.n.u.script of Mark (P45), dating from Origen's era.1 In that ma.n.u.script, Christ is called the ”son of the carpenter,” as he is in Matthew.

In any event, all of our ideas that Jesus was a humble carpenter-vividly brought to life in so many books and movies-may in fact be based on a later scribe's interpolated phrase or an erroneous translation, but not on the genuine biography of a real person. As the scriptures are examined in this manner, and the layers are peeled away, we find a number of characteristics attributed to Jesus that are evidently false or, at best, later additions that may or may not be true but certainly were not included in the originals. A picture develops of an artificial, patchwork ”biography” put together piecemeal over time of the ”most important man who ever lived.” This idea of patching together over a period of decades and centuries what was supposed to be a biography provided by eyewitnesses of the time is perturbing to our quest in determining who Jesus really was, because we have so little to go on and so much appears to have been fict.i.tious.

A Camel or Rope?

Another difficulty in our a.n.a.lysis of the biblical texts presents itself in the nonsensical pa.s.sage at Matthew 19:24 concerning the ”camel” pa.s.sing through the eye of a needle. It is theorized that the word was originally gamla in Aramaic, which evidently means both ”camel” and ”rope,” as in a thick cable made of camel's hair. It is logical to suggest that the original word is meant to convey not ”camel” but ”cable rope,” and that the original translators of this saying got it wrong. However, one argument avers that the term ”eye of a needle” refers to a particular gate in a town or city, which would be more sensible than the eye of a real needle, as a camel can pa.s.s through a city gate.

”The End of the Age?”

At Matthew 28:18, Jesus says, ”I am with you always, to the close of the age.” What does that mean? Some translations state ”world,” rather than ”age.” If Jesus is with us until the end of the world or age, what happens after that? The word used for ”age” or ”world” is the Greek term -aion-for which Strong's Concordance gives the meaning as: 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age Again, Jesus is first depicted as saying that he will only be with his disciples a short while, whereas later he states he will be with them for eternity. The difference, apologetics claims, is one of the physical versus the spiritual, although if Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, and has always been with us, it is difficult to surmise he was never ”felt in anyone's heart” until after his incarnation. It is interesting to note that the word ”aion” or ”aeon” is a ”cult” term used within Gnosticism, once a commonly accepted form of Christianity that later became ”heresy.” Instances of Gnostic terminology and thought can be found in a number of places in the New Testament, including and especially in some of the oldest layers of the Pauline epistles.1

Originals or Not?

To reiterate, there are many places where the evangelists do not agree with each other verbatim about what Jesus said. Ancient ma.n.u.scripts of the same gospel also record Jesus's words differently from one to the next. Not all of these versions can be correct; therefore, some of them are wrong. How can we be certain that we are in possession of Christ's precious, original words? The KJV fundamentalist argument is that G.o.d simply didn't care about the originals and let them be destroyed. If G.o.d is so careless about the originals, why should we care about them? In fact, why should we care about the Bible at all, with such a blase att.i.tude as G.o.d holds towards it? Since the originals have simply been destroyed, we must take the word of mere human beings that the King James translators of Erasmus's hastily compiled Received Text is inerrant-why should we believe them? Like King Jehoiakim and the prophet Jeremiah, who are depicted in the book of Jeremiah (36:23, 51:63) as destroying the originals of that text twice, why don't we just toss out the whole Bible?

Moreover, we cannot even look towards the original languages for an inspired Bible, say the KJV fundamentalists: ”If the Bible is inspired only in the 'original languages,' it is barbaric,” goes the argument!2 Based on 1 Corinthians 14:11, in which Paul discusses the difficulties of dealing in different languages, it is reasoned that a tongue foreign to one's own const.i.tutes a ”barbarian” language. So, what about for those of us who do know Greek and/or Hebrew? Is King James English the only language that is not barbaric? Would English not also be barbaric to those who do not know it?

Also, why would the Holy Spirit, who is supposedly guiding the efforts of the evangelists, have them record Jesus's sayings in their own peculiar styles, rather than verbatim in proper and correct Greek? Even if Christ spoke in Aramaic, why wouldn't the Holy Spirit-who is Jesus and would therefore know exactly what he said-inspire the evangelists to translate his words all the same? Moreover, if Jesus is the omniscient Lord, who knows all languages perfectly, why would he speak Aramaic and not Greek-did Christ only come for the relatively small and isolated population of Aramaic-speaking Jews? Yet, at the end the Lord changes his mission to include Gentiles, many of whom spoke Greek, the lingua franca of the time. Wouldn't an all-knowing G.o.d realize that to reach a Gentile audience, Aramaic would be inappropriate and unhelpful? By the argument using 1 Corinthians, wouldn't Aramaic also be barbaric?

Furthermore, why is each gospel so obviously unique in style and grammar? Could it be that these are mere human beings writing these texts, without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The claim of ”divine inspiration” begs the question as to why the Holy Spirit did not correct the various translation problems and errors, among so many other mistakes. Logically and rationally, of course, we may simply suggest that the copyists and translators were fallible humans who made mistakes.

Also, those who chose the books of the canon, such as Church father Irenaeus, declaring these and no others to be ”inspired” and canonical, must themselves have been inspired by the infallible Holy Spirit. Otherwise, mistakes could have been made, and books that were not inspired may have been incorporated into the canon, and vice versa. The idea that the selectors of the NT books must also have been inspired opens up certain difficulties, including the fact that the final canonization required a couple centuries of raucous and violent infighting, with doubt cast upon every currently canonical text. This fact begs the question of why G.o.d as the Holy Spirit would require so many individuals and so much time to iron out all these differences. This scenario would most logically and scientifically be viewed as a human endeavor and concerted effort by many individuals who were simply acting under their own power and motivation.

In addressing the concerns raised once it is determined that no translation can be considered ”inerrant,” Christian apologetics sometime claims that what we do have is ”good enough.” But are these translations ”good enough?” If there are errors in them, how can we accept that everything they say is correct and accurate? If the omnipotent G.o.d/Jesus is so concerned with the salvation of our souls, why not once and for all present us with the inspired and inerrant originals, which he could easily manifest, even if they were destroyed?

What all this a.n.a.lysis means is that it would be highly questionable to a.s.sert that any translation is inerrant and that its translators were infallibly inspired by G.o.d as the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by reading any translation in English or other language one cannot attain an entirely inerrant understanding of what the original authors meant to convey. As we have seen, we do not possess the originals-apparently gleefully destroyed by G.o.d-so we are in a double bind as to why we should believe.

Illogic and Irrationality.

<script>