A Brief Primer on Bible Translations

I recently had the amazing experience of having a FRIENDLY discussion of the bible translation issue and as the people there did not seem conversant with the subject I offered the following “primer” on the basics and thought I’d publish it here.
If I could offer a brief primer on the subject…..
There are two main issues:

1. Which Greek manuscripts are to be translated from.

2. And which Translation Method will be used.

First, the manuscript question. There are two basic textual families of the five thousand or so extant manuscripts available. There are others vastly less represented in the body of available manuscripts, but the Byzantine text type, and the Alexandria text type comprise the vast majority of the texts that have descended to us from history, and the considerable majority of these two types are Byzantine text type manuscripts. When the phrase “text type” is used, it is a reference to the fact that “families” of texts are categorized according to their variant readings. In other words differences in the text (IJn. 5:7 or Mat 9:13 for instance) determine which family they belong to.
Historically, these Byzantine text types were what were used by Protestant churches producing the scriptures, and the Alexandrian type, were what were historically used by the papists when they produced theirs. Thus, the Vulgate, the Douey Rheims, and the more modern “New Jerusalem” bibles were translated by the papacy from Alexandrian text type manuscripts. Tyndale’s bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the King James Bible were produced by Protestants from the Byzantine text types. (Yes, despite the fact that the manuscript they all used came from a committed papist, Erasumus. The papist establishment never rendered a translation from Erasmus’ work that would ever get the “imprimatur”.)
You will perhaps recall it being affirmed the Protestants didn’t have certain texts available when they produced the KJV, thus implying that did they have, they may not have showed the preference they did for the Byzantine text types. Bear in mind that the Protestants all had HUGE numbers of manuscripts of BOTH families to translate from, and thus had they esteemed Alexandrian manuscripts, they would have had ample opportunity to have used them. But while they “diligently compared” all these, and all the translations that anyone had made, yet, they eschewed them as the authoritative source of their translations.
But in the 1800’s two Alexandrian text types were discovered that were precipitously embraced as ostensibly showing a greater historicity of the Alexandrian text types over the Byzantine, simply because they were older. From that day to this these two discoveries have been latched on to in an attempt to turn the narrative against favoring the Byzantine text type which was historically used by ALL reformation bibles and in favor of the Alexandrian which had been used in ALL Roman Catholic bibles.
One of these was found in a Catholic Monestary at the base of Mount Sinai by a man named Tischendorf (Codex Sinaiticus) and the other was found in the popes library (Codex Vaticanus)….. hopefully that tells you something. Informed believers will know what to make of that. These manuscripts were not more complete or legible than any other extant manuscript but were claimed to be older and therefore better and more reliable than former texts. But older does not mean better at all for any number of reasons and when one considers the penchant for papists to burn the libraries of “heretics” the claim of papal concern for textual purity will be esteemed only by the credulous. From Jerome’s Vulgate onward papal influence has fought for the Alexandrian and sought to suppress the Byzantine.
At that time and by these means, a textual coup in this regard was accomplished by two very ungodly men by the names of Hort and Wescott, two pretended Protestants. In 1880 I think it was these produced a “revised” Greek text from which to produce bible translations and at least one token evangelical who was invited to participate left the project saying that the minds of the other “scholars”were already made up and they were basically just creating a new manuscript based on the Alexandrian text type. They then made the RSV translation from this Alexandrian based text, which was the first ostensibly “Protestant” version to use the Alexandrian text. Many have followed. I could go on buy if you really care and have historical discernment this should be sufficient to get you at least considering the right road toward a real bible. There is much that might be said for the papist character of both Hort and Wescott, and all the cries of “argumentum ad hominem” can take a back seat to “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly”, or Nehemiah’s phrase when the wicked asked to help them build… “We will build, for ye have neither part nor lot in this matter”. Hort and Wescott uttered many expressions favoring the most extenuated of papist heresies, leading many to believe their claim to be protestants was a transparent ruse. The one who left wrote a book about the hypocrisy and illegitimacy of the revision endeavor. If I recall, I think his name was Burgeon, or something like that.
The NKJV was an attempt to have at least SOME modern translation produced from the historically Protestant text. It failed miserably in many respects openly using NU variants in different places but its still WAY better than any overtly NU based version. NU stands for the Nestle/United Bible Society’s Greek text, and this now is what everyone uses to translate from, which is basically Hort and Wescott’s Alexandrian version. The historical Protestant text is called the Textus Receptus or “Received Text”, also called the Stephanus 1550 from which all Protestant bibles were translated. The Reformers and Puritans etc. had mountains of Alexandrian manuscripts to choose from but while they “consulted” them in their translation work, they rejected them as the authoritative source of their translations. The two manuscripts presently translated from then are the NU (Alexandrian) and the Received text, (Byzantine).
The second issue is that of translation method…..

Translation method.
There are two types of translation method used, Exact Equivalence or Dynamic Equivalence. Exact equivalence requires that an exact word-for-word rendering be used unless none exists, and then the most exact possibility available used when there isn’t a perfect word. (You thought they all did that didn’t you! Lol) “Dynamic” equivalence grants the translator license to literally change anything he wants to based upon what he FEELS the original author actually meant. Which is, of course, perverse. This basically means that ANY Dynamic “Equivalence” version is… yeah…. a paraphrase. Who is asking for a translators OPINION??? Do you want that? If we wanted that we’d buy his commentary! Of all misnomers! Its not dynamic! Its not equivalence! It’s not a translation!
Further down this slippery slope is an admitted paraphrase where this presumptuous license to insinuate textually unwarranted expressions into the translation is extended to include thoughts which the “translator” deems intended that have no textual basis whatever! While a great deal of this goes on in any “dynamic equivalence” “bible” translation, yet this takes the step of admitting it more openly. This is what your reading! The textually unwarranted utterances of a translator. Consider this, my reader…. anyone willing to do that will have a perverse and godless thing to add. No one adds good things to the bible. The presumption that would thus exalt itself into God’s shoes will have nothing of value to say whatever.
My advice is….. get a real bible. I mean even the ESV which modern hipster “evangelicals” fawn over was not even pretending to be a new translation, but was intended as a modernization and refinement of one of the most liberal “translations” ever! (The RSV) What you do to get evanjellyfish to embrace such a “translation” is to get one whom they revere to spearhead the project. Like… yeah… Wayne Grudem. Oh? Grudem was behind it? Oh, so cool. It has to be good, I’m changing. Yeah, we’re really that dense.
Who ever would have thought that the Christian community could become so doltish and oblivious to that which is of the first importance to its welfare! As if this subject were not paramount! Everyone waxes valiant for Sola scriptura when they fall effete about what “scriptura” even IS. This is not the way to glorify God. To use the 1971 RSV these grovelling traitors had to go get permission from the National Council of Churches to use their text as a base, and the final product has a great deal of “gender neutral” language. If you can’t tell what that means…. examine yourself to see whether you be in the faith. IICor.13.