The Nature of the Biblical Text
Study 3B The Greek Language
The New Testament was written in Greek. Why was this so? As it was written by Jews, why was it not written in Hebrew?
The Greek Empire, under Alexander the Great, the King of Macedon spread its influence throughout the Mediterranean area about 300 years before the time of Jesus. Although the military might of Greece did not last nearly as long as that of Rome, the Greek cultural influence was far more pervasive and lasted long past the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
This Greek cultural influence extended into the language spoken, written and taught. Greek was used widely in Palestine for a considerable number of years before Jesus. At the time of Jesus, Greek was used by the learned and it was taught in Jewish Rabbinic schools. It was the language used by those who engaged in intellectual and literary pursuits. Although Aramaic was the language spoken, particularly by the common people and by Jesus when teaching them, Greek was the language written by the scribes and religious leaders. This Greek influence was felt so much in Jewish communities, and particularly in the practice of their religion, that the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, which translation had been completed about 200 years before Jesus, was used in Synagogue and Temple worship. This Greek translation of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint, symbolised by LXX, (LXX is the Roman numerals for 70.) This translation was supposed to have been undertaken by 72 scholars. The story is told that each scholar, working independently, took exactly the same amount of time to do the translation - 70 days, and their resulting translations were all exactly the same. A good story!
It is agreed by scholars that all but one of the authors of the New Testament books were Jewish, Luke being the exception, however they all wrote in Greek, not Hebrew. It is possible that some of them could not even speak, read or write Hebrew. Sometimes they refer to Hebrew, as in John 19:17 -
‘Jesus was now taken in charge, and carrying his own cross, went out to the Place of the Skull, as it is called or,( in the Jew’s language), Golgotha.’
As the early Christian Church accepted the Jewish Scriptures as their own Scriptures, they also used the Septuagint translation. When the New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament text, as they did explicitly over 150 times, and by implication another 1,100 times, they used and quoted from the Septuagint Greek translation, not from the Hebrew text.
This translation creates another transition that the text of the Old Testament went through in its journey from the original to us. The New Testament writers did not quote Scriptural passages from the Hebrew text but from the Greek translation. The importance of this will become evident a little later in this study.
1 Punctuation
Greek, like Hebrew, was originally written without punctuation. When punctuation is inserted, depending on the particular piece of punctuation used, it can determine and sometimes give a different meaning to the text. An example of the importance of punctuation concerns one of the sayings of Jesus from the cross. When one of the criminals, with whom Jesus was crucified, says to him, refer to Luke 23:42-43 -
“Jesus, remember me when you come to your throne.” He (Jesus) answers, “I tell you this: today you shall be with me in Paradise.”
Most translations have this punctuation ‑ the colon (:) - after the first ‘you’ and before ‘today’ in Jesus’ reply. If the colon (:) is put there, the meaning is that the criminal will be with Jesus in Paradise ‘today’. Without any change to the words used, if the colon (:) is put after ‘today’, the meaning is changed. It is now that Jesus is speaking to the criminal ‘today’, with no comment about when he will be with Jesus in Paradise. It becomes -
He (Jesus) answers, “I tell you this today: you shall be with me in Paradise.”
This may not seem too serious, but the Mormons claim that it is important to put the colon (:) after ‘today’, because they assert that ‘today’ must refer to when Jesus was talking, not to when the thief would be with Jesus in Paradise. The Mormons believe that there is a period of being in the grave, after death, before any transfer to Paradise can take place. Jesus, they believe, would not have contradicted this by saying to the thief that he would have been with Jesus in Paradise immediately after his death.
The usual punctuation, the colon (:) before ‘today’ and not after, renders the meaning that the thief will be with Jesus in Paradise today virtually immediately after his death.
Remember the sentence mentioned in the previous study that created an opposite meaning with different punctuation - whether the man or the woman is nothing! That is an extreme case nevertheless.....
Punctuation can be important!
2 Variant Readings
Original manuscripts of the New Testament do not exist now, but their content has been handed down through copies, copies of copies, copies of copies of copies, and so on, like that of the Old Testament.
This has given rise, in the case of the New Testament, to about 300,000 variant readings. A variant reading exists when two documents of the same piece of text, are not exactly the same. As with the Old Testament, copying the New Testament text has given rise to numerous variations.
When I was a theological student studying the New Testament in Greek, as with all the other theological students, I was given a copy of a Greek New Testament, a publication of the British and Foreign Bible Society. On every page there is a black horizontal line. Above the black line on each page, is the Greek text of the gospel, and below, are listed all the variant readings for the text. Often a majority of verses on a page, sometimes up to 11 of 14 verses printed on a single page, would have variant readings attached to them. Every single page of the 787 pages of this New Testament, has variant readings identified.
The vast majority of the 300,000 variant readings are quite inconsequential, but some are important as we shall see.
Some of the reasons for the variations in the text of the different documents have been dealt with when we looked at the Hebrew written language and the Old Testament in the previous study. As stated for the Old Testament, the Good News Bible has many footnotes also for the New Testament. These include:- ‘some manuscripts do not have..’, ‘some manuscripts add ...’, ‘some manuscripts have...’, etc.
It is interesting, however, that nowhere does the Bible version state that the Greek is unclear, as it does so often for the Hebrew. The Reason? Maybe the scribes did a better job and/or maybe, because Greek had written vowels and was easier to copy, it was less open to mistakes.
One very obvious and significant example of these variant readings is John 8:1‑11. This passage contains the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery, after which the Pharisees challenge Jesus to have her stoned, according to the Law of Moses.
Remember the footnote exercise we did in the previous study when looking at the Old Testament? In this case, the Good News Bible has brackets around this whole passage - John 8:1-11 - with a footnote, little ‘r’ at the bottom of the page 127 saying -
Many manuscripts and early translations do not have this passage 8:1-11, others have it after John 21:24, others have it after Luke 21:38, one manuscript has it after John 7:36.
Who knows what is correct and what was the original? Whatever the explanation, this is an important example of the variant readings of the New Testament. Some scholars suggest that John 8:1‑11 may have been a later insertion in the Gospel. The Good News Bible chose to follow the later documents and thus included this possible later insertion in the gospel.
Another example of variant readings is that, according to the Good News Bible on page 112 footnote little ‘c’, ‘some manuscripts do not have’ Luke 23:34 -
‘Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing.”’
This saying of Jesus from the cross is not in any other Gospel. It is suggested by some scholars that Luke 23:34 may have been deleted later from his gospel. The Good News Bible has chosen, in this case, to follow the earlier documents and have included the saying of Jesus. The translators decided to include what may have been a possible later deletion.
For good reasons, maybe theological and/or textual, Biblical scholars, translators and the leaders of the Church have determined to retain the two passages mentioned above in nearly all our present editions of the New Testament. There would be little doubt that they are as authentic and as ‘original’ as many other passages of the New Testament.
I am personally very pleased that both have been retained because they are both extremely significant to me and my understanding of Jesus and his message.
Yet another important set of variant readings is found at the end of Mark's Gospel, (See page 71 of the Good News Bible.). We are told that there are three different endings to Mark’s gospel. Two are stated as being ‘old’. The footnote (z) comment in the Good News Bible is -
‘Some manuscripts and ancient translations do not have this ending to the gospel (verses 9-20).’
The footnote (a) states –
‘Some manuscripts and ancient translations have this shorter ending to the gospel in addition to the longer ending (verses 9-20)’
This second ‘old’ ending gives additional verses 9 and 10. The concluding chapter of the gospel presents a problem. The majority of manuscripts contain the full twenty verses, but most of these are suggested as being later additions. The earliest Christian writings which show acquaintance with Mark, assume their genuineness. Yet there is some important early evidence which suggests the original ending of Marks’ gospel was 16:8.
From the above, it can be seen that, although sometimes thought of as academic, issues surrounding the text can be extremely important to us all. They can affect what we have in our Bible to read. Those who are not students of the original tongues, and not skilled at Biblical criticism, may ask, ‘Why are passages retained or deleted?’ I suppose the answer is not simple. It could be for a number of different reasons.
However, we have the Bible as it is and there is little chance that it will be officially altered significantly in the future. There will be new translations and versions but it will probably remain much the same as it has, for the last 1800 years. Who knows?
We can presume that it has come down to us under the guidance and direction of honest church leaders and diligent scholars. However, I, as well as others, do sometimes wonder how much church politics and the hunger for power of certain individual church leaders has influenced the text that we have today.
The above examples of variant readings are but a few. Their origin is a matter for historical study and, even though the reasons for them occurring may be somewhat obscure at times, ...
Variant readings can be important!
3 Translations
Translation is just about always accompanied by some interpretation.
With translation there is always the possibility of alteration or modification. It has already been identified that the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament was a translation used by the writers of the New Testament for about 150 explicit quotations from it and about 1,100 implicit references to it. It is significant that the Good News Bible lists ‘New Testament passages quoted or paraphrased from the Septuagint’, (refer to page 358). Three and a half pages, list quotes made from the Septuagint that have different meanings to that of the Hebrew text that was being translated. Nowhere does the Good News Bible say that these are ‘mis-translations’.
Some would argue that they are. Such is the case with the group of eminent scholars who translated the New English Bible. They state in the Introduction to the Old Testament section that, ‘Not infrequently it (the Septuagint) contains absurd translations.’
Some would say that the New Testament writers were quoting from mistakes brought about through mistranslation from the Hebrew into the Greek. Others argue that God had a hand in correcting the Hebrew text through the translations into the Greek and that the New Testament writers were quoting the correct ‘word’ because they were using the translation into Greek. It, they claim, was the corrected text. One might ask, ‘Why did God wait so long to have the corrections made?’
The Good News Bible, in its introductory comments about these passages, states why this list has been printed. From page 358 -
The writers of the New Testament generally quoted or paraphrased the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, commonly known as the Septuagint Version (LXX), made some two hundred years before the time of Christ. In a number of instances this version (the Septuagint) differs significantly in meaning from the Hebrew text, and as a help to the reader such occurrences are listed here.
85 such occurrences are listed. Most of these are insignificant. For instance, the first listed for Mark's Gospel is Mark. 1:3 in which Mark quotes Isaiah 40:3, from the Greek, the Septuagint translation. Mark 1:3 reads -
‘Someone is shouting in the desert, “Get the road ready for the Lord; make a straight path for him to travel.”’
However, Isaiah 40:3 in the Hebrew text states, -
‘A voice cries out, “Prepare in the wilderness a road for the Lord! Clear a path in the desert for our God.”’
There is no real problem here. The only difference is that in the Hebrew, the road is in the wilderness; whereas in the Greek translation (the Septuagint), and thus the quotation made by the gospel writer, it is the person who is shouting who is in the wilderness. The difference is there but it is not of vital importance. Some might suggest that the different is important.
It is a very different matter when we look at the first passage listed, in the Good News Bible, for Matthew's Gospel. This is very important. Matthew, when quoting from Isaiah 7:14, again from the Greek, the Septuagint translation, states in his Gospel, Matthew 1:22‑23 -
‘Now all this happened in order to make what the Lord had said through the prophet come true, “A virgin will become pregnant and have a son, and he will be called Immanuel.”’
However the Hebrew text is different. Isaiah 7:14 reads -
‘Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel’.’
The footnote (x) in the Good News Bible, accompanying the Isaiah 7:14 on page 675, of the Old Testament section states -
The Hebrew word here translated ‘young woman’ is not the specific term for ‘virgin’, but refers to any young woman of marriageable age. The use of ‘virgin’ in Matthew 1:23 reflects a Greek translation of the Old Testament (The Septuagint), made some 500 years after Isaiah.
Unlike the first example dealt with, this variation from the Hebrew is very significant because Matthew 1:22-23 is used as a basis for the creedal statement, ‘Born of a virgin’. Is this based on a mistake? Some scholars state it is. Others disagree. (For further reading about the Virgin Birth, an attachment can be printed through the linkm below.)
Another issue regarding translation, which has nothing to do with the Septuagint, is noted when dealing with different translations and versions in English. Different translations have slightly different wordings in certain places. Most of these are not important but some are. Take for instance the story in Luke’s Gospel when Jesus was invited into the home of Simon the Pharisee. It is in Luke 7:39-50. It is in no other gospel.
In this story, there is a parable tucked away, and the explanation of it is in the conversation between Jesus and Simon. Reading from the New English Bible, at the end of this conversation, Jesus is quoted as saying - refer to verse 47 -
‘And so, I tell you, her great love proves that her many sins have been forgiven .....’
In this translation, the forgiveness comes first. The woman’s love of gratitude and thankfulness ‘proves’ that she has been forgiven . The love is the result of the forgiveness. This is grace. Forgiveness is given freely. The response is gratitude and love.
Now look at the Authorised King James Version. This translation reads -
Wherefore I say to you, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much; ...
In the King James version, the love comes before the forgiveness. The forgiveness is the result of her love having been given first. She is forgiven ‘for’ she loved much. No grace here! The forgiveness is the reward for her great love.
It seems to me that this is a very significant difference. The Revised Standard Version agrees with the King James Version, however all the other translations and versions I have consulted agree with the New English Bible and the Good News Bible.
Why are there different translations? Is it because of the different theological positions that the translators hold, or is it that some translators do a more correct job than others? It is reasonable to presume that the more modern translations are probably the more accurate, however I suppose we all have to make our own decisions about which is the best for us. There are scholars who certainly would support us, whichever way we go!
We have highlighted above, agreement between the New English Bible and the Good News Bible. Now we turn to a variation between the two. Turn to 2 Timothy 3:16. The Good News Bible has -
‘All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth...’
The New English Bible has only a slightly different translation, but the meaning is significantly different.
‘Every inspired Scripture has its use in teaching the truth ....’
These translations, although not very different at a glance, give a totally different comment about ‘Scripture’. The one states that ‘all’ Scripture is inspired and the other uses the word ‘inspired’ to describe what sort of Scripture is useful for teaching the truth. All other translations I have consulted favour the Good News Bible, the first of these two alternatives. However, we do not have agreement amongst all Biblical scholars or translators. This verse has often been the centre of discussions about the inspiration of the Bible and its authority. The debates arise and continue.
Of course, it is obvious that when the books of Timothy were written there was no New Testament as such; so one could ask, ‘What did the writer mean by the word ‘Scripture’? What was the body of literature being referred to? There was, most probably, no recognised New Testament and maybe even the content of the Old Testament had not been finalised, so what does the word ‘Scripture’ refer to?’
These are only a couple of examples but we should accept that...
Translation can be important!
Quotations and questions for discussion
Similar to the Old Testament - Does all this cause a loss of credibility for the New Testament?
How much should we rely on scholars and the results of their studies?
How do we determine what are important texts and unimportant texts?
Where does all this leave the people who believe that the Bible is without error?
How can we keep depending on the Bible when it might have lots of errors?
Different translations give rise to different emphases. This is helpful because it can lead to different insights.
I know there have been lots of variations of translations, but God can take care of that.
Extra reading for ‘Translations’.
As I have stated, sometimes different translations can point in very different directions regarding the meaning of a passage. There are numerous different translations of the Bible. In these there are a countless number of different translations of individual words and phrases. Most of these ‘different’ translations do not amount to much but some are important. In some occasions one word can make an enormous difference.
I comment on 2 ‘different’ translations.
In the Good News Bible translation of Matthew 25:14 -30, the well-known parable of Jesus about the Talents, verse 14 is, -
At that time the Kingdom of heaven will be like this.
However in the other Bibles I have, the translation is, -
For it will be as…;or, It is like…,;
I have searched 41 other translations/versions and 25 have ‘It’, 12 have ‘the Kingdom of heaven’, and 4 have something quite different. Nearly all of the recognised and universally acknowledged ‘Standard’ translations used in churches, use the translation ‘It’. The only exception to these often used translations I have found, is the Good News Bible, as quoted above.
For me, the ‘Kingdom of heaven’ is an interpretation of the ‘It’ in the other translations. This is important because ‘It’ leaves the parable story open to various interpretations whereas ‘Kingdom of heaven’ defines the story as being a parable about the Kingdom and about nothing else. Some would argue that this is a very reasonable interpretation. However, for me, it is still an interpretation
From my book, ‘Starting all over again? Yes or No?’- pages 226 – 230 has the following,
Jesus told the parable of the talents.
This is a rather long conversation with those who state that an understanding of 1st Century culture and economics is essential for correct explanation and preaching. The writers of Matthew’s gospel in the Revised Standard Version, has Jesus saying, -
For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So too, he who had two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, “Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.” His master said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.” And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, “Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.” His master said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.” He also who had received the one talent came forward saying, “Master, I knew you were a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.”
But his master answered him, “You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed and gather where I have not winnowed. Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.” So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given more and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. (Matthew 25:14-30.)
I have been taught this parable had to do with the Kingdom of God, with rewards for those who are diligent, active disciples of Jesus. I have been taught that the master was God and the parable was about the way the Kingdom of God works. I have been taught that the ‘going and coming back again’ of the master had to do with the ‘coming’ and then ‘going and coming back again’ of Jesus. The talents were to be thought of as abilities given by the Holy Spirit to people, to further God’s Kingdom. There were rewards and punishments at the end of things. I thought that the servant who was given the one talent was rightly described by the master as being wicked and slothful. I added my estimate that he was also lazy. I have also been taught that the parable has the lesson in it – ‘If you don’t use it, you’ll lose it.’
However, I have also had problems with this story. I thought the punishment to the third servant was harsh and I could not understand the one talent being taken from him and given to the one who had ten, the most. I always thought that was unfair. It was not suggested to me that I should look at the way the master did not question the third servant’s criticism of him. Even though the master did not question the criticism of the third servant, I thought what the master said was his sarcastic response. Rewards and punishments never sit well with what I believe is the basic message of Jesus is,- unconditional love - but these seem to be crucial in this story. If the Master was likened to God then I thought God was harsh and unfair. These were my problems.
M. Eugene Boring gives a commentary.in The New Interpreter’s Bible; -
The meaning of ‘good and faithful’ is not mere theological correctness, passive waiting, or strict obedience to clear instructions, but active responsibility that takes initiative and risk…..
The pictures point beyond themselves… speaking of the reality of judgement and the necessity for decision and responsible action.
This confirmed for me, the understanding I have been given over the years, that the parable was about the way the Kingdom of God worked and my involvement in it. A disciple of Jesus had the responsibility of working for the kingdom, multiplying goodness and virtue, and not sitting idle, waiting for someone else to do the work of discipleship.
I now have to put alongside this understanding, the comments from Malina and Rohrbaugh’s book ‘A Sociological Commentary of the Synoptic Gospels’, with their explanation of 1st century, middle-eastern cultural and economic context. The authors’ comments are -
Essential to understanding poverty is the notion of ‘limited good’. In modern economics, we make the assumption that goods are, in principle, in unlimited supply. If a shortage exists, we produce more. If one person gets more of something, it does not automatically mean someone else gets less, it may mean the factory worked overtime and more became available. But in ancient Palestine, the perception was the opposite; all goods existed in finite, limited supply and were already distributed. This included not only material goods, but honour, friendship, love, power, security, and status as well - literally everything in life. Because the pie could not grow larger, a larger piece for anyone automatically meant a smaller piece for someone else. An honourable man would thus be interested only in what rightfully was his and would have no desire to gain anything more, that is, to take what was another’s. Acquisition was, by its very nature, understood as stealing. The ancient Mediterranean attitude was that every rich person is either unjust or the heir of an unjust person. Profit making and the acquisition of wealth were automatically assumed to be the result of extortion or fraud. The notion of an honest rich man was a first-century oxymoron.
Then, referring specifically to the parable under consideration, the authors give their commentary; -
Two slaves trade up their master’s holdings, doubling the amount. They are clever slaves, behaving as slaves should. In the ‘limited good’ world of the first-century Mediterranean, however, seeking ‘more’ was morally wrong. Because the pie was ‘limited’ and already distributed, an increase in the share of one person automatically meant a loss for someone else. Honourable people, therefore, did not try to get more, and those who did were automatically considered thieves. …
The third slave buried his master’s money to ensure that it remained intact. This, of course, was the honourable thing for a freeman to do; was it honourable behaviour for a slave? ……
When the day of accounting arrives, we find the master rewarding those who were vicious enough, shameless enough, to increase his wealth for him at the expense of so many others. These slaves, in fact, are just like their master. For we find out from the third slave (and the master agrees) that, indeed, the master himself is quite rapacious and shameless ‘a hard (NRSV “harsh)’ man, reaping where (he) did not sow and gathering where (he) did not scatter seed. (v. 24). …….
But the master’s problem is that the third slave is wicked and slothful; he did not even put his money in a bank at usury (v.27). Because of his sloth, the master decides to entrust the third slave’s property to the one who embezzled the most profit. The reason for the behaviour is a truism in peasant society (v. 29); ‘Those with more get more and have abundance; those with nearly nothing have even that taken from them’. And the master’s final decision is to publically shame the ‘worthless’ slave (v. 30)…..
From the peasant point of view, therefore, it was the third slave who acted honourably, especially since he refused to participate in the rapacious schemes of the king. Moreover, the harsh condemnation he received at the hands of the greedy king, as well as the reward to the servants who cooperated, is just what peasants had learned to expect. The rich could be counted on to play true to form - they take care of their own.
This was all strange and very new to me. With this interpretation, built on the 1st Century Mediterranean economic model, this parable is given a meaning precisely the opposite to what I have been taught in my church past instruction.
According to this interpretation, the parable is not a parable about how the Kingdom of God works but a realistic picture of how the then current unjust society worked and I think Jesus’ peasant audience would have understood it as a story of the way things were!
This can be seen to hinge on one word and the translation of that word!! ‘It’ or “The Kingdom of God’. I think this is important.
Another example of different translations.
This second example, which may not be as important, is the translation of John 2:1 and the first phrase of that verse. Most all the 41 different translations I have researched have -
On the third day…
.
A few have ‘Three days later…’ or ‘Two days later…’ Again, it is the Good News Bible that has ‘Two days later…’
To most regular church goers this would not sound important. However, I believe that the early followers of Jesus would, when they heard the phrase ‘On the third day’, would nearly automatically finish the statement with ‘Jesus rose again.’ And that is what the story in John is all about; changing the water for Jewish rites of purification; see John 2:6, into the new wine of the new covenant with Jesus that we celebrate in the communion service.
‘Two or Three days later’ completely loses this connection and I think is a woeful translation! With these translations, the story has an irrelevant beginning. They just have to do with the passing of time.
So, I think it important to choose the translation which most readily leads to a preaching of the Gospel, and reflect the best of biblical scholarship that we are aware of.
Print 'Further reading about thr V irgin Birth'.
Print Booklet (Download and print double-side, flip on short edge) The text above has the text of the bookblets edited somewhat and because there are many pictures in the booklets, all reference to them has been omitted.