One.
Really. Just one time from the original language to the language and version of your Bible. The original writings were copied many times, but the Bible you hold was only translated once.
Many people – including some Christians – are quick to say that the Bible has been translated and changed so many times over the centuries that we don’t know what the original writings said. For example, I just saw a video clip where Deepak Chopra (alleged religious expert) claims that the King James was the 13th iteration of the Bible.
But contrary to that myth, the books of the Bible have only been translated once and the copying process was very robust, dependable and verifiable.
For example, Paul wrote in Greek, and we have Greek manuscripts to make translations from. That is one translation.
Conventional wisdom: Tranlations from one language to another to another . . .
Greek original ==> Latin translation ==> other translations ==> King James version ==> New International Version, etc.
What actually happened
Greek original ==> copies of Greek original ==> Latin version
Greek original ==> copies of Greek original ==> King James version
Greek original ==> copies of Greek original ==> New International Version
Etc.
So the real issue is how accurate and reliable the copying process was. The science of textual criticism shows that the copies of the New Testament are 99.5% accurate and that the differences are minor and have no impact on Christian theology.
Regarding the Old Testament, here are some notes from the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:
The OT does not have as many supporting manuscripts as the NT but it is, nevertheless, remarkably reliable.
- The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT done around 250 B.C., attests to the reliability and consistency of the OT when it is compared to existing Hebrew manuscripts.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 also verify the reliability of the OT manuscripts.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls were ancient documents that were hidden in a cave in Israel about 2000 years ago. The scrolls contained many OT books, one of them being Isaiah.
- Before the Dead Sea scrolls, the earliest existing manuscript of the OT was dated around 900 A.D. called the Masoretic Text. The Scrolls contained OT documents 1000 years earlier. A comparison between the manuscripts revealed an incredible accuracy of transmission through copying, so much so that critics were silenced.
In summary, the Bible you hold has only been translated once, and the copying process was very robust, dependable and verifiable.
Also see Is The New Testament Reliable? and Has the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can’t trust it anymore?
How do yo know? Were you there? Even my priests at Loyola agree the Bible is. Far cry from what was originally written. But then again, what the hell do they know.
Hi Tony,
We know via the art and science of textual criticism. Even skeptics concede that we know what 99.5% of the original writings said, and the 0.5% is virtually all inconsequential things like the order of words or spelling (e.g., Johnn vs. John). There is no debate about any key doctrines, especially when things like Jesus being the only way to salvation are written so many times in so many places. In fact, you can take the two most divergent streams of texts and still come up with the same thing: Orthodox Christianity.
If your priests are just pointing that out, they are correct. If they think we really don’t know what the originals said then they are seriously and sadly mistaken.
Just because I wasn’t there doesn’t mean we can’t know what the originals said. Over 5,000 manuscripts of different ages have been found throughout the world. When they have 99.5% agreement (and 100% on major doctrines) it demonstrates that it is impossible for the originals to have said something different. There is simply no way anyone could have gone through the world and changed all the manuscripts.
Hope that helps!
First you should think then do the knowledge like if the bible was translated from the greek version the we wouldent have the name “Jesus” due to the greek vocabulary havin no “Y”… I bealive that the bible was translated from either latin or more resent versions of translations… heres an example… Yeshua is a Hebrew name which has
been transliterated into Greek as
Iesous ( IhsouV: pronounced ee- ay -
SUS or ee- ah -ZOOS ) . The English
“Jesus” comes from the Latin
transliteration of the Greek name into
the Latin Iesus . Now Greek has no “y”
sound, but the Latin “i ” is both an “i ”
and a “j ” ( i . e. , it can have a
consonantal force in front of other
vowels) , the latter of which is properly
pronounced like the English “y” ( which
explains the German Jesu, ” YAY-
su “) That is why we spell Jesus as we
do, taking it straight from Latin , but we
pronounce the name with a soft ” j”
sound because that is what we do in
English with the consonantal “j “.
A post simply to ask a question raised in researching the amounts of translations done to the bible. As an adult who has lived and taught in multiple areas of the world from America to Japan and who speaks 3 languages well (English, Spanish, Japanese) and spent 1/2 my higher educational life around language development and etymological history of words and translation, I still have been unable to find an apt answer to a question. And perhaps I just haven’t had enough opportunity to ask and learn it myself
but I’ll pose it here still because it intrigues me.
How are we (in this instance meaning English speakers/readers of the bible) supposed to understand and compromise the differences in sexual/gender specific words which English (as well as the other Latin based languages) use in contrast to genderless/sexually ambiguous terms found in Hebrew or Greek?
It would seem that a great deal of difference can be found in one’s understanding of any text based around the identification of gender to a specific context. This goes way beyond the implications of including or excluding a “Y” from the spelling of Jesus. To have a god, Yahweh (or for the sake of discussion any omnipresent/omnipotent power) be a genderless entity rather than be a “father figure” (or again for sake of discussion “maternal figure”) would have tremendous effect on the reading, understanding, and in this case development of one’s perception of the universe from a core belief.
This was just the first example I thought of when that question of translation and comprehension of classical languages into a modern structure. For those who are raised in a language (which determines how everything we learn and conceptualize in our minds is based) that has a “definite” interpretation or identification with construct like male or female can we TRULY comprehend and conceptualize and believe that which is, at a core, different? And do 99 percent of those reading a modern translation of the bible understand that “God” was genderless in original texts and became engendered only after Romantic (Latin) languages defined it as such… not because of any malicious intent, but simply because their language didn’t have a context to translate it any other way.
And finally cause I didn’t mean to open the floodgates on my questions. Is this concept vital to ones understanding of their identity in this life? Or, can it simply be brushed to the side as easily as whether a “Y” should be included in the spelling of one’s name? I appreciate any thoughts you all wish to share, thanks for letting me ask.
The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament. The Bible is a progressive revelation. If you skip the first half of any good book and try to finish it, you will have a hard time understanding the characters, the plot, and the ending. In the same way, the New Testament is only completely understood when it is seen as a fulfillment of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament.
If we only had the New Testament, we would come to the gospels and not know why the Jews were looking for a Messiah (a Savior King). Without the Old Testament, we would not understand why this Messiah was coming (see Isaiah 53), and we would not have been able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah through the many detailed prophecies that were given concerning Him, e.g., His birthplace (Micah 5:2); His manner of death (Psalm 22, especially vv. 1, 7-8, 14-18; Psalm 69:21), His resurrection (Psalm 16:10), and many more details of His ministry (Isaiah 52:19, 9:2).
Without the Old Testament, we would not understand the Jewish customs that are mentioned in passing in the New Testament. We would not understand the perversions that the Pharisees had made to God’s law as they added their traditions to it. We would not understand why Jesus was so upset as He cleansed the temple courtyard. We would not understand that we can make use of the same wisdom that Christ used in His many replies to His adversaries.
The New Testament Gospels and the Acts of the apostles record many of the fulfillments of prophecies that were recorded hundreds of years earlier in the Old Testament. In the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, life, miracles, death, and resurrection as found in the Gospels, we find the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies that relate to the Messiah’s first coming. It is these details that validate Jesus’ claim to be the promised Christ. And even the prophecies in the New Testament (many of which are in the book of Revelation) are built upon earlier prophecies found in Old Testament books. These New Testament prophecies relate to events surrounding the second coming of Christ. Roughly two out of three verses in Revelation are based on or related to Old Testament verses.
Also, because the revelation in Scripture is progressive, the New Testament brings into focus teachings that were only alluded to in the Old Testament. The book of Hebrews describes how Jesus is the true High Priest and how His one sacrifice replaces all of the previous sacrifices, which were mere portrayals. The Old Testament gives the Law, which has two parts: the commandments and the blessing/curse that comes from obedience or disobedience to those commands. The New Testament clarifies that God gave those commandments to show men their need of salvation; they were never intended to be a means of salvation (Romans 3:19).
The Old Testament describes the sacrificial system God gave the Israelites to temporarily cover their sins. The New Testament clarifies that this system alluded to the sacrifice of Christ through whom alone salvation is found (Acts 4:12; Hebrews 10:4-10). The Old Testament saw paradise lost; the New Testament shows how paradise was regained for mankind through the second Adam (Christ) and how it will one day be restored. The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3–6). The Old Testament predicted the Messiah’s life. The Gospels primarily record Jesus’ life, and the Epistles interpret His life and how we are to respond to all He has done.
Without the Old Testament we would not understand the promises God will yet fulfill to the Jewish nation. As a result, we would not properly see that the tribulation period is a seven-year period in which He will specifically be working with the Jewish nation who rejected His first coming but who will receive Him at His second coming. We would not understand how Christ’s future 1000-year reign fits in with His promises to the Jews, or how Gentiles will fit in. Nor would we see how the end of the Bible ties up the loose ends that were unraveled in the beginning of the Bible, restoring the paradise that God originally created this world to be.
In summary, the Old Testament lays the foundation for, and was meant to prepare the Israelites for, the coming of the Messiah who would sacrifice Himself for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). The New Testament shares the life of Jesus Christ and then looks back on what He did and how we are to respond to His gift of eternal life and live our lives in gratitude for all He has done for us (Romans 12). Both testaments reveal the same holy, merciful, and righteous God who must condemn sin but who desires to bring to Himself a fallen human race of sinners through the forgiveness only possible through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. In both testaments, God reveals Himself to us and how we are to come to Him through Jesus Christ. In both testaments, we find all we need for eternal life and godly living (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
If what you said is true there would not be any of these differences. One can not keep 99.5% pure and have such a wide change in what and how information is copied.
Right.
I do have a question about this right here, though:
Greek original ==> copies of Greek original ==> Latin version
Greek original ==> copies of Greek original ==> King James version
Greek original ==> copies of Greek original ==> NIV
It was my understanding that most (if not all) of the Old Testament was originally written down in Hebrew. The Gospels were written in Aramaic, a language common in 1st century Judea. Lastly, the rest of the New Testament (Acts – Revelation) were written in Greek as stated.
Further, it was also my understanding that the entire thing was translated into Latin, probably sometime during the later years of the Roman Empire after the time of Constantine. This, from what I heard, is where it stayed until Martin Luther translated it into German around 1521. I could be wrong, but I believe it was also Luther who threw out some of the books the Catholic Church had included 1,500 years earlier, believing them to be inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. This in turn formed the Protestant Bible. The Catholics still use the pre-Luther unabridged version.
I’m guessing the translation into other languages such as English (apparently from copies of the original manuscripts) took place sometime after this; I think King James, for example, reigned after the Protestant Reformation.
The Dead Sea Scrolls merely verified what was already known; they didn’t contain any new information.
I also read awhile back that someone even translated the Bible into Klingon. Go read your Scripture, p ‘tagh!
Hi,
I think the Gospels were written in Greek, with a few Aramaic phrases.
Luther didn’t delete the Apocrypha, Catholics added it.
Really? I mean, I could be dead wrong in everything I’ve said. I did not bother to go look this stuff up.
When I was in college, I took an elective course titled “The Bible as Literature.” The textbook was the Bible as we know it, but it was an edition which included the Apocrypha. One of the books in that section was a required reading assignment. I don’t remember the name…Alma or something. My cousin is something of a scholar of church history; seems like he told me that they describe, in part, some of the historical events which took place in the 450-odd years between the writing of Malachi and Matthew. The story of the Macabees would fall in this period, I think, along with the Roman invasion of Israel.
Since I am not Catholic, I have no idea whether the text used for the course was distinguishable from the Catholic Bible or not. Maybe our friend Roxeanne could weigh in on this. I also thought that the Apocryphal books had been in the Bible for the entire period between the Council of Nicene to the Reformation. Am I wrong about that too?
I really should go look this stuff up, but it is easier to defer to people who have already done their homework. Neil?