Most serious readers of the New Testament know that there are thousands of minor textual variants among the hundreds of ancient manuscripts available to us. And most recognize that there are no make-or-break theological issues that hang solely on a variant reading.

My colleague Philip Comfort has written a scholarly (yet very readable) compendium of the major variants called New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Tyndale House Publishers, 2008). If you have a question about any textual variant, Phil undoubtedly addresses it in this book.

An interesting textual variant is in 1 Cor 13:3. Which of these English translations reflects what Paul originally wrote?
NIV: If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
TNIV: If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship, that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

The difference between the two translations reflects a single letter within a single word in the Greek. The translators have to choose between kauthesomai ("that I may be burned") and kauchesomai ("that I may boast"). Pretty big difference, though neither variant is central to Paul's point, which is the need for love.

The Textus Receptus reads kauthesomai, which is followed by KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, TLB, NEB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB.

The UBS Greek text chooses kauchesomai as the more likely original reading. This variant is followed by NRSV, NAB, NLT, TNIV, and NET.

Note the movement within revisions of English translations:
RSV ("to be burned") to NRSV ("I may boast"). But ESV, which is also a revision of the RSV, retains "to be burned."
TLB ("burned alive") to NLT ("I could boast").
NIV ("to the flames") to TNIV ("I may boast").

For the most part, the newest generation of translators have chosen to follow the UBS text. I wouldn't expect the NKJV to switch, because it is philosophically committed to following the Textus Receptus. But it will be interesting to watch over the next decade to see if NASB, ESV, or HCSB switches to the alternate reading.

Labels: English translations of the Bible, Greek New Testament, Mark Taylor, New Living Translation, textual variants

The NT writers frequently quote from the OT. When we begin to study NT quotations of the OT, we are instantly drawn into the complex issue of how the Hebrew text is translated--first into Greek and then into English.

Let's look at James 4:6b as an example. The NLT translates this passage as follows:

As the Scriptures say,
“God opposes the proud
but favors the humble.”

The first question for the translator and commentator is, What Scripture did James have in mind? (Very occasionally, as in Acts 13:33, the NT writer gives us an explicit OT reference; usually we have to dig for it ourselves.) In this instance, there is no OT passage that seems to be a direct source text for James's quotation. But the NLT text note points us toward Proverbs 3:34. So we go to Prov 3:34 and we find the following text:

The LORD mocks the mockers
but is gracious to the humble.

On the surface, it looks like someone has made a mistake. The quotation in James is not a very exact replication of the proverb. The Hebrew proverb (as we read it in the English translation) is talking about "mockers," which does not have the same connotation as James's term "the proud." Did James goof? Did the NLT translators--in either the OT or the NT--goof?

We find important clues in the NLT text notes. The text note at James 4:6 reads, "4:6 Prov 3:34 (Greek version)." This suggests that James, who was writing in Greek, was not creating his own translation of the Hebrew proverb. He was quoting from the Septuagint (often abbreviated as LXX)--the Greek translation of the OT that was in wide use in Palestine during the first century.

The text note at Proverbs 3:34 reads, "3:34 Greek version reads The LORD opposes the proud / but favors the humble. Compare Jas 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5."

So the NLT text notes take us behind the scenes to show that James was quoting directly from the LXX. In fact, there is only one small difference between the LXX wording and James's quotation. LXX translates the Hebrew Yahweh as kurios (translated into English as "the LORD"), and James uses the divine name theos (translated into English as "God"). The text note at Proverbs 3:34 also points us toward the NT passages where this verse is quoted: Jas 4:6 and 1 Pet 5:5.

I believe the NLT is unique among English translations in giving readers this kind of behind-the-scenes view of how NT writers frequently use the LXX as their source text.

Labels: Greek New Testament, Mark Taylor, New Living Translation, NLT, Old Testament quotations in the New Testament

By Mark D. Taylor

The issue of sentence structure in English Bibles is interesting. On the surface, one might assume that an English Bible could/should simply follow the structure of the sentences in Hebrew and Greek. But the very concept of a "sentence" differs from language to language.

Let's look at the prologue to Romans (Rom 1:1-7) as an example. We begin by reminding ourselves that koine Greek does not actually use punctuation or paragraph breaks, nor does it differentiate between upper case and lower letters. This might surprise you, because the UBS Greek New Testament uses paragraphs, capital letters, and punctuation (commas, periods, question marks, and semicolons). But this is because the editors of that Greek text have made judgment calls as to how the Greek "sentences" should be presented in a format we're accustomed to seeing in English.

In the UBS Greek text, Rom 1:1-7 is presented as one long sentence (i.e., the first full stop comes at the end of verse 7). But does that mean that English translations should also use only one sentence for that passage? Formal-equivalence translations tend to do so. For example, KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, and ESV all use only one sentence for this long prologue. Interestingly, the NKJV uses two sentences. NIV and TNIV use four sentences. NLT² uses nine sentences.

Which approach is correct? I would argue that they all are. Each translation uses a unique translation philosophy, and the structure of English sentences plays into that philosophy. Unfortunately, the proponents of formal equivalence sometimes imply that the only legitimate style of translation is to follow the sentence structure of the original texts as closely as possible. But life isn't quite that simple.

Labels: Bible Translation, Bible translations, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, Greek New Testament, Mark Taylor, NLT