Skip to main content

A History of Bible Translation: Chapter 1 - The Greek Translation of the Old Testament

In the fourth century BC a king called Ptolemy the 2nd decided it would be a good idea to get the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek. He, as the story goes, appointed seventy translators who were told to sit in separate booths and work alone, and at the end of the process all seventy miraculously produced identical translations of the Hebrew Bible. What a way to check for accuracy![1] This translation became known as the Septuagint, and is one of the most reliable texts of the Old Testament we have, along with the Masoretic Text (10th century AD), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century BC). Sometimes the Dead Sea Scrolls line up with the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text, showing that the Septuagint represents an earlier and more reliable Hebrew text than the Masoretic text, despite the latter’s authority in the Judeo-Christian world.

The main reason to be thankful for this translation, is that it is the main text alluded to by the writers of the New Testament. By then Greek had established itself as the language of education in the Mediterranean region, despite Roman[2] military dominance, and the use of Aramaic by Jews in the home and on the street, and the use of Hebrew in the synagogues.[3] Why do I say ‘alluded to’ not ‘quoted’? Because the New Testament writers, like Winnie the Pooh,  often ‘used’ the Septuagint to mean what they wanted it to, not what it originally communicated in the Hebrew. They felt they had a divine calling to write, and in doing so were writing not just ordinary words, but Scripture. The world had changed after both the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and destruction of the temple, and they had a message to share.

This means that the Bible we read is itself dependent on a translation of the older, Hebrew Bible, what we as Christians call the Old Testament. It uses that translation as a stepping stone to move into new territory. Therefore, some missiologists such as Lamin Sanneh have talked about the ‘translatability of Scripture’ – the Bible is inherently a translation, contains translated material, and focusses on a person, Jesus the Messiah, who himself became incarnate, involving a ‘translation’ from heavenly to human.


[1] The Soviet Union apparently used to use a word count to check translations were accurate. Perhaps they were from the same stable.
[2] The Romans spoke Latin, but were themselves educated in Greek.
[3] Most of the New Testament was written after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, so synagogues were the only meeting places for Jewish believers.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument?  Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...
3 comments
Read more

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
Post a Comment
Read more