Anyone who has studied a language other than their own native tongue will be aware of the difficulty involved in translating that language into English. Some languages do appear to be easier than others to translate into English, however, even these present a skilled translator with some degree of difficulty. When it comes to translating the Bible text from the Hebrew or Aramaic and the Greek there are numerous difficulties that make it extremely difficult to convey the exact same meaning into English.

The average English speaking Christian has been made familiar with the venerable King James Version of 1611 which became the standard for the English speaking world for a very long time. At the time it was translated there were a number of other translations published at about the same time or earlier. The Wycliffe Bible, the Tyndale version, the Bishop’s Bible, to mention the better known English versions, along with Martin Luther’s translation into German from the Latin version. Each of these varied from the others in numerous instances, most of them minor but there were also some major differences. The King James Version was the product of a committee of scholars whose avowed intent was to produce as near perfect a translation as possible. The preface to the original King James Version (hereafter KJV) states this in the flowery and fulsome praise accorded King James who encouraged and supported the endeavor. At the same time, there was bitter opposition from the Presbyterians (Puritans) who declared it to be a mistranslation.

All of these translations suffered from the lack of good manuscripts from earlier times. The Latin versions produced by Jerome and later the Douay-Rheims produced by the Roman Catholic Church were best known in the west. The Orthodox churches had the advantage of access to many ancient manuscripts since it was in the east that Christianity came into being and from there spread the Gospel to the west. They were, for the most part, better able to translate the New Testament manuscripts since Greek was their native tongue or a second language. Many of these manuscripts did not become available to western scholars until more recent times. The oldest of these dating to the 9^th century AD. Today The Greek New Testament standard is that of the Nestle–Aland text based upon a huge number of manuscripts, papyri and uncials and commentaries that have become available in more recent years. In short, the evidence for the reliability of the Greek text is as near certain as it is ever likely to be. However, there are notable differences of opinion as to the correct translation even of these.

The standard Hebrew translations of the Old Testament are based upon the Massoretic text which is problematic for a number of reasons. It was based on a rejection of the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation made by Jewish scholars in Alexandria in the middle of the 3^rd century BC.

The Greek language had become the lingua franca of the middle east and most Jews could no longer read the original Hebrew. Hebrew has no vowels and with just the consonants there was uncertainty as to how to read or pronounce Hebrew. The language spoken by Jews during Jesus’ day was Aramaic, a cognate semitic language, as well as Greek. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament became the standard used by Jews everywhere for nearly 300 years. It was the version quoted by Jesus and the disciples in what we now call the New Testament. Wherever one reads ‘scripture(s)’ in the New Testament they were referring to the Septuagint Greek Old Testament. The writings we call the New Testament were not written during Jesus’ lifetime and until some time thereafter. The general consensus of scholars is that all the New Testament writings had been written by the year 100 AD, although they were not proclaimed as official by the Church until much later.

After Jesus’ crucifixion and the subsequent increase of His followers among the Jews, many of the Pharisees were disturbed because the prophetic passages in the Septuagint version lent great support to the contention of His apostles and their followers, the early Church Fathers, concerning the prophetic predictions about the Messiah. Rabbinical scholars gathered at a Beth ha-Midrash (rabbinical school) in Jamnia in 90 AD in an effort to produce a generally agreed Hebrew version. There was then and continued to be much controversy over which writings should be included in the Old Testament list of sacred writings. At the same time they had to devise a means to enable them to determine which vowels were proper as well as accent marks to provide the correct pronounciation of the Hebrew since it has no vowels, only consonants. The markings used were devised by the Massorete Jews of Tiberias, hence the name Massoretic text. The various readings in the Old Testament text and the differences between the ancient versions and the newly created Massoretic text made it clear that the texts showed wide variation and the Ben ha-Midrash scholars frequently disagreed with each other as to what writings were to be included. This was particularly the case with the prophetic writings that referred to the Messiah.^[1] In any case, it was not until centuries later that a standard list of books considered as authentic and suitable for reading in the synagogue came into being. Even with the material available today there are still differences of opinion among Jewish scholars in the translation of significant portions of the text.

In the case of the New Testament writings that were considered as authentically apostolic                 these were the result of Paul, Peter, Mark, John, James’ letters written to various of the churches (especially those of Paul), as well as the non-apostolic Luke’s gospel. The other three gospels of Mark, Matthew and John were written to make the case that the Old Testament writings were all about the coming of the Messiah. Of these only Matthew and John were among Jesus’ chosen disciples. Paul speaks of himself as “one born out of time,” who had the dramatic encounter with the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. The writings we find today in the New Testament were all written between the period following Jesus’ crucifixion in 33AD and the year 100AD. All of them were written in the Greek language, the common language of the day.

 

In recent years there has been a proliferation of English translations. To name the most prominent, the New King James Versions (NKJV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the American Standard Version (ASV) and  new version of the same (RASV). The English Standard Version (ESV) and a new version of the same (NESV). More recently the New International Bible (NIV), the New English version (NEV), and Ken Taylor’s, The Living Bible, is a very free translation and frequently inaccurate. The Darby Bible, and the recent New Electronic Translation (NET). This is only a partial list of the better known English translations.

 

Concerning the approach by the various translators, the NASV statement is typical: “The attempt has been made to render the grammar and terminology in contemporary English. When it was felt that the word-for-word literalness was unacceptable to the modern reader, a change made in the direction of a more current English idiom.

Hebrew Text: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolph Kittle’s Biblia Hebraica has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Hebrew Tenses: Consecution of tenses in Hebrew remains a puzzling factor in translation. The translators have been guided by the requirements of a literal translation, the sequence of tenses, and the immediate and broad contexts.”

 

They say much the same for the Greek text. The facts are that in a great many instances it is known that the real meaning has been obscured or totally changed in translation. The nuances of the Greek language are not always easily translated. The result is that the English translations leave much to be desired if one is to know precisely what the original writer was attempting to convey. In any case, the confusion created by the various translations has led to the great variety of doctrinal issues among Protestants in general, and to a lesser degree even in the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.

 

In my fifty years of ministry in the Episcopal Church I read numerous commentaries and theological treatises from a great variety of sources, putting forth the authors’ views on the meaning of the Scriptures and a host of topics. The number of scholarly PhDs has grown apace but the understanding of the Scriptures is probably more divided than ever. My own knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages is minimal. Three years of Greek in seminary and Hebrew taken in post-graduate training does not make one a linguist. In short, I am not an expert.

 

Over the years my own concern about the accuracy of translations and the widely variant commentaries on them led to a growing suspicion that the understanding of the Bible is at an all time low in the western world, not least of all here in America. The average Christian in any denomination who reads the Bible in whatever version does so as though it is to be read and understood in a strictly literal sense. Each is his own expert in interpretation and “please don’t bother me about what the original language says.” The facts are that the Bible has to be read contextually and with the understanding that much of it is written in metaphorical terms. This has been brought home to me more clearly since my entry into Orthodoxy. In the Orthodox Church there is a greater unanimity of understanding about the meaning of Scripture than will be found anywhere else. This isn’t to say that there aren’t disagreements over some matters, but taken as a whole they are of one mind about the faith once delivered to the saints. No one, in my opinion, expresses this as well as and as clearly as the Rev. Fr. Paul Nashim Tarazi, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament at St. Vladimir’s Seminary.

 

What follows is my endeavor to select and paraphrase what he has to say on the text of the Bible that illustrates the metaphorical aspect of the Scriptures and to demonstrate just what a truly great difference it makes in understanding the sacred writings. There is nothing that is original with me. I have simply made selections to illustrate the point and with the hope that anyone who reads this will be led to resort to the full text of his six volume series on the Bible: three on the Old Testament and three on the New Testament.

 

To make clear my purpose I begin by a lengthy quote from Prof. Tarazi’s Introduction in his first volume on the Old Testament.

   “If the necessity of interpretation is true of books in general, then it is true of the Bible in particular. And because the Bible is considered by Christians to be the “Word” of God, His “Book,” i.e., a book whose author is God Himself, then those who read the Bible are actually dealing with God’s intent. And since God, for the Christian, is always taken as the ultimate authority in matters pertaining to man and the world, this biblical interpretation tastes of the ultimate. In other words, while the meaning of an ordinary book may be important, the correct understanding of the biblical text is a necessity. Consequently, collective [emphasis added] reading is not a luxury.  Rather, it is a necessary process for the correct understanding of the Bible. And, according to St. John Chrysostom, no one is exempt from such an endeavor. Let us listen as this fourth century Father explains to his parishioners why St. Paul writes his name at the beginning of his letters, unlike Moses and the evangelists: “as for the reason why some Prophets and Solomon did write down their names, while others did not wish to do so, this I leave as a subject for you yourself to look into later on. For you are not to learn everything from me, but to take pains yourselves (plural) also and inquire further; otherwise you will become stupider [not smarter].” (Homily I on Romans)^[2] What is even more remarkable is that these words were spoken by someone who preached regularly to his church community on the books of the New Testament verse by verse!”^[3]

 

Fr. Tarazi continues, “To deliberately avoid such collective reading in the study of the Bible is the consequence of either of two erroneous assumptions.

1)       One is to appeal directly to God, the author of the Bible, in order to receive through (the Holy Spirit’s) inspiration the true meaning of a given text. But then, why should we bother at all with the biblical text if we have the possibility of conversing directly with God? We could satisfy ourselves simply by asking God’s will day-by-day. Moreover, if this were indeed the case, why did God Himself bother to write more than 1500 pages unless he intended that we know Him and His will through these pages.

2)       The biblical text is so clear that one can understand it by oneself. In this case, we should wonder then what the function of the sermon in Christian gatherings might have been.”

 

Rebuttal of this kind of reasoning was already offered in the fourth century by St. John Chrysostom in the first of his homilies on the New Testament books:

“It would indeed be good for us if we could get by completely without the aid of the written Word. It would be good if we could live a life so pure that the grace of the Spirit would guide our souls instead of books, so that just as books are imprinted with ink, so our hearts would be imprinted with the Spirit. But since we have utterly rejected that grace of the Spirit, let us now at least embrace the second-best course of action. As for the fact that the former way was indeed better, God had shown us both by His words and His actions. For He spoke directly with Noah, Abraham and his offspring, Job, and Moses, having found the minds to be pure. With them He had no need of writings, but after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, ever thereafter did He use the written word and admonitions by means of it. And plainly this was the case of the saints not only of the Old Testament but also of the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit. For He said, “He shall bring all things to your Remembrance.” And as proof that this is a far better way, hear what He says by the Prophet: “I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them,” and, “they shall be taught by God.” And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said that they had received a law, “not on tablets of stone, but in fleshly tablets of the heart.” But since in the passing of time they “made shipwreck,” some with regard to doctrines, others with life and manners, there was again need to be reminded and admonished by the written word. (Homily 1 on the gospel according to St. Matthew)

And this was necessary because the questions that arise are so many and so frequent. See, for instance, right at the beginning of this Gospel, how many difficulties might be raised one after the other….You see how much wakeful attention is needed on our part, not only for explanation, but even to teach us what are the things that need explanation. And this is no small matter, to find out what the difficulties are that need to be explained.”^[4]

“On the other hand: (Fr. Tarazi writes), if this ultimate revelation of God is witnessed to in the New Testament, why should a Christian devote his precious time to studying the Old Testament when he has yet to master the more relevant writings contained in the New? Well, the fact is, you will not be able to master the New Testament until you have mastered the Old. The Old Testament forms the “raw materials” out of which the New Testament writings were “woven.” Understanding the Old Testament vocabulary and thought processes is a prerequisite for understanding the New Testament insofar as the latter follows the lead and builds upon the base of the former. But the latter also departs from the former in certain ways. And being able to see when and how the New departs from the lead of the Old is crucial to one’s ability to see how the gospel message offers a radically new approach to God’s being and intention.”^[5]

It is the requirement that one be familiar with “the Old Testament vocabulary and thought processes” as a prerequisite to understanding the New that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to understand the New Testament. This is the great failing in so much of Bible teaching in many, if not most, Christian churches that leads to doctrinal emphases that are misleading and the consequence is the multiplicity of denominations based upon their emphasis of some particular doctrinal difference they perceive. Ultimately, there is no excuse for these differences. Jesus’ prayer that His followers be One and that they have but One faith precludes the denominational separations.^[6]