is that which is adopted in the body of The New English Bible itself. / 5 / A fifth alternative is to add other matter which is not cited in addition to one of the above endings. Such a procedure as this takes a problem which right fully belongs to the highly-trained textual critic of the New Testament, and transfers it to the untrained reader of the English version. The English reader is then forced to make his own decision when in reality he has no basis upon which to make it. Other passages where this policy is well illustrated are John 7:53-8:11 and Romans 16:25-27. (4) A fourth inadequacy of such a free translation might be termed an idiomatic disadvantage. The idio matic English utilized in the translation was designed to be intelligible to the English-speaking people of
variety found in the work, but also a very possible and plausible interpretation of the nature of these tongues is obscured by the use of some form of the word ecstasy. By means of this word any relationship between the gift of tongues in I Corinthians and the gift of tongues in Acts 2 is automatically excluded. (3) A third area of disadvantage might be described as a textual disadvantage. A looseness in this area seems to go hand in hand with the philosophy of free transla tion. In spite of the recent advances made in the field of textual criticism, it is the fear of the writer that the NEB has not capitalized upon the advantages which are available to the translator of the present day. Two reasons for this opinion may be given: (a) The first is the failure of the translators to follow a uniform method of textual criticism in the determina tion of the best text. According to the Introduction to the Bible, the translators selected “ the reading which to the best of their judgment seemed most likely to repre sent what the author wrote” (The New English Bible, p. vii). The reason given for this procedure is the lack of agreement among New Testament scholars today as to what the correct critical text is. Nevertheless, it would seem that a uniform method which might stand in doubt would be preferable to no method at all. As the transla tion now stands, one cannot be sure whether he is reading a translation which has a sound textual basis or a trans lation based upon a text which is the product of the opinion of whoever happened to be the translator of that particular book. An illustration of the point is found in Matthew 27:16, 17 where the name Jesus is inserted in the text while a footnote permits the omission of the name on the basis of “ some witnesses,” An examination of Nestle’s listing of evidence reveals that the only evidence for the insertion of the name comes from a Greek manu script of the ninth century, a group of minuscules which would date from the same century or later, two Syriac translations, and the church father Origen. The evidence in favor of the reading is quite weak; nevertheless it is given a place in the body of the translation. This lack of uniformity in the method of determining the correct text of the New Testament leaves the translators open to a criticism which could not be directed at the transla tors of the King James Version in 1611 and the Revised Version of 1881. There was a standard text used con sistently by each of these earlier versions, and right or wrong, the critical text used was known, and the version could be evaluated on that basis. (b) A second reason for the opinion of the writer that tiie translators have failed to capitalize upon the advantages which are now available to the textual critic relates to the system of footnoting used in the new ver sion. To be specific, in Mark 16 the reader of the English text is left to make his own choice between a number of possible endings for the Gospel: /1 /T h e first is to end the Gospel with the last word in verse 8. / 2 / The second is to end the Gospel with two sentences which have hitherto appeared in the body of no major English translation. These two sentences are printed in the body of The New English Bible between Mark 16:8 and Mark 16:9, and a footnote pertaining to them records the following words: “ Some witnesses add this paragraph, which in one of them is the conclusion of the book.” / 3 / Another alternative presented to the reader is to end the Book with the words of verses 9-20 instead of with the words which are printed as an un numbered verse following verse 8. / 4 / A fourth alterna tive is to end the Book with the words of verses 9-20 in addition to the newly inserted paragraph which is printed between verses 8 and 9. This highly debatable conclusion
THE WORLD 'S BIBLE Christ has no hands but our hands To do His work today; He has no feet but our feet To lead men in His way; He has no tongue but our tongue To tell men how He died; He has no help but our help To bring them to His side. We are the only Bible The careless world will read; We are the sinners gospel, We are the scoffer's creed; We are the Lord's last message, Given in deed and word; What if the type is crooked? What if the print is blurred? What if our hands are busy With other work than His? What if our feet are walking Where sin's allurement is? What if our tongues are speaking Of things His lips would spurn? How can we hope to help Him And hasten His return?
— Annie Johnson Flint (Copyrighted by Evangelical Publishers, Toronto, Canada)
Europe, not of America. As might be expected in the light of this stated purpose, quite a number of idioms which are unintelligible to the American ear will be encoun tered by the readers of this Bible. Specifically, very few Americans will know that the term Whitsuntide as it is found in I Corinthians 16:8 is an ecclesiastical term re ferring to the seventh Sunday after Easter and the week which follows it. In Matthew 13:57 it is recorded that the inhabitants of the Lord’s own home town Nazareth “ fell foul on him” ; this expression is not the idiom of English which is spoken in America. In Matthew 23:24 Christ addresses the Pharisees and scribes with these words: “ Blind guides; You strain off a midge, yet gulp down a camel!” In this case it will be necessary for the American reader of the Bible to take his dictionary from the shelf, and look up the word midge in order to discover that it refers to “ any very small gnat or fly.”
19
JUNE, 1961
Made with FlippingBook HTML5