The Art and Agony of Translation

1 John 5:7-8 reads differently in the King James Version than in other translations because Erasmus lost a bet.

If you compare this verse in the King James Version, you will find a Trinitarian formula (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one” ) that does not appear in most of the other translations.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
—1 John 5:7-8, KJV

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
—1 John 5:7-8, NIV

In the 16th century, Erasmus, who was from Rotterdam but was living in Switzerland at the time, and Cardinal Ximenes of Spain both undertook to compile a Greek New Testament from the fragmentary manuscripts and copies that were then extant. Ximenes came out with a nicely-bound, scholarly, and expensive version, but Erasmus ran away with all the sales because his edition was less expensive and the first to come out. Until Erasmus’ manuscript came out, anyone in the West who wished to study the New Testament in the original Greek had to slog from library to library to examine all the pieces, and they would have to resolve minor differences in wording for themselves. So Erasmus’ New Testament made it possible for serious Bible students to circumvent the Vulgate (the fourth-century translation of the Bible into Latin) and get back to the Greek, and it quickly became a standard.

Erasmus originally left the extra wording out of 1 John 5:7-8, because even though it was traditional, he could not find it in any of his Greek sources. This caused a great controversy, because many people were using this verse as a proof-text for the Trinity. So Erasmus caved in to popular pressure and stated that if anyone could produce a Greek fragment of 1 John that contained this wording, he would include it in the next critical edition of his Greek text.

Well, someone found such a fragment. Erasmus was not convinced of the genuineness of the Greek fragment, but being true to his word, he amended his text under protest.

The King James Version contains the extra wording because it was based on this later edition of Erasmus’ text.

There has been a lot of progress in the reconstruction of the Greek New Testament since Erasmus’ day. Erasmus was limited to the bits and pieces of the Greek New Testament that were available in and around Switzerland at the time, and considering what data he had available, he did a real bang-up job. However, in later centuries, scholars again had access to the East, which proved a rich source of manuscripts, and archaeologists have uncovered even more information. We also now have access with ancient translations into other languages, such as Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian. At present, there is more evidence for the wording of the Greek New Testament than any other ancient document; in fact, we are more certain of its wording that we are of the wording of Shakespeare’s plays or the existence of entire ancient empires!

Today, we can vindicate Erasmus’ original position from the wealth of evidence we possess. The extra wording in 1 John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of the earlier manuscripts and only in a very few of the later ones. It appears that someone made a Bible study note in the margin and that a later scribe copied it into the text, thinking it was a correction. This does not mean that there is anything doctrinally wrong with the interpolated text, it just means that it did not originally appear there.

In 1 Timothy 5:19 we find one of the reasons that it took so long for the Bible to be translated into English. As you know, before the seventeenth century, it was very controversial to translate the Bible into English. Often, people who did it were tried and executed for the crime! We like to write this off to the benighted attitudes of bygone eras, but we do our ancestors an injustice when we give them short shrift like that. There were some serious controversies surrounding this issue. (I have tried to be as dispassionate, neutral, and accurate as possible while still giving you an idea of the flavor of the problem. If I have slipped up, let me know):

At the time, there were very strong factions in England concerning the state of the church.

There were those who wanted to be aligned with Rome. However, ecclesiastical allegiance with Rome was not restricted to religion, it entailed certain wide-ranging political consequences, including special privileges for the clergy and for church property, which depressed the economy and greatly impaired the government’s ability to raise money through taxation. Ordinarily this wouldn’t have been too important, except that there was an impending international political crisis. Since Spain was in good graces with Rome and England was not, and the threat of the conquest by the Spanish Armada was looming on the horizon, the government needed money to raise an army.

Among the people who favored separation from Rome for political reasons, there were different schools of thought about religious reform. Some (like, believe it or not, Henry VIII!) wanted no religious reform at all, while others wanted to make extensive changes. They wanted to dismantle the system of priests, deacons, and bishops for something else. The government needed a central, stabilizing social force among the people, so it opposed religious reforms that it thought would weaken the nation from within. The King wanted the nation at its knees in penitential prayer to beg for deliverance from the Armada; a decentralized church would hamper his efforts to elicit God’s support.

What a mess! Actually, religion wasn’t so much the subject of the dispute as it was the arena. It was a vexing problem because nearly everyone—including the King—had mixed loyalties.

So here come the early Bible translators. They come across 1 Timothy 5:19. The word presbuteros occurs in the Greek. How should they translate it?

The English word which historically developed from presbuteros is priest. (With time, presbuteros became prester, and prester became priest.) If they translated presbuteros as priest then half the readers would be in an uproar over creeping Romanism. Some government officials might think this supports the Church of England, others might see it as evidence of foreign subversion.

The English word which translated the meaning of the word presbuteros is elder. In fact, today the Church of England uses the word elder as a synonym for priest. But back then it would have been just as controversial. The Church of England had priests, but if the Bible translation did not, it would lend credence to the idea that the clergy were unbiblical and that would undermine the authority of the church and therefore also the government. Half the readers would protest, and some government officials might interpret it as a call to anarchy.

Well, they could just put down presbyter and let it go at that, you say.

Why not just borrow the word from Greek all over again? However, that wasn’t a solution either. Presbyter breaks with historic church practice just as well as elder does, which neither the government nor the friends of Rome like, and it ends up looking like an endorsement of Presbyterianism, which was very strong in Scotland—in fact it is the state church there today.

So how do you translate the Bible into English without invoking a huge political controversy? Back then it was nearly impossible. People who did it got in trouble, especially because they weren’t shy about putting sarcastic remarks about the government and the church into their translations. The early translators were martyred because they were perceived as political subversives.

Now you know why it took so long to get the Bible in English.

Today if you compare Titus and Timothy in various translations you will find that this problem has not yet been resolved. However, the issues of national defense, patriotism, and religious orthodoxy are no longer attached to it, so there’s no fighting in the streets over it.

So that was the sixteenth and the seventeenth century, you say. We don’t have problems like that, you think. Well, you’re wrong.

For example, some translators put the first half of Revelation 20:5 in parentheses and others do not. There are no punctuation marks in the original Greek, so why do they do this? Without parentheses, the verse says:

The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

This is not a problem for Lutherans and other Christians who have always believed that the ‘first resurrection’ happens at baptism and the ‘second resurrection’ on the Last Day and that the ‘thousand years’ refer to the period between the first coming and the second coming, when Christ reigns on earth through the church, because people are being converted throughout all of church history.

However, if you are a premillennialist, you believe in two physical resurrections before and after a thousand-year period that follows the time of the church. Without parentheses, the verse seems to say that the first resurrection will take place after the millennium, which does not fit the doctrine. With parentheses, the verse complies with the doctrine:

(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

There are other vexing dilemmas for translators in areas that impinge upon the social and political issues of our day, or on theological conflicts within the Church.

You Might Also Like:

Translations of the Bible Into English

You decide to buy yourself or someone else a Bible, so you run down to the nearest bookstore—but they have so many different translations, you don’t know where to begin. Here is something that might help: a list of modern translations that you are likely to find in a bookstore, with a description of...
Read More

About Those ‘Literal’ Translations

Every so often, someone writes to ask me about some obscure Bible translation, and invariably they add, ‘it is supposed to be a literal translation.’ For me, this is a red flag. Let me explain. New Testament Greek is quite a different language from English, and a strictly literal translation is impo...
Read More

The Nicene Creed and the New Testament Canon

The New Testament and the Nicene Creed are deeply entangled with each other. The wording and the concepts in the Nicene Creed come from the New Testament—in fact, one of the most important debates at the Council of Nicea concerned whether it is proper to include a word in the Nicene Creed that does ...
Read More

The Torah in Modern Scholarship

The first five books of the Bible are called the Torah by Jews and the Pentateuch by scholars. The word ‘Torah’ is Hebrew for ‘teaching’ or ‘law,’ and the word ‘Pentateuch’ is Greek for ‘five books.’ Sometimes scholars include the book of Joshua and term the collection the ‘Hexateuch,’ which means ‘...
Read More

The Apocrypha and the Old Testament

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.—Proverbs 30:5-6, NIV The canon of scripture—that is, the official list of what’s in the Bible—is not revealed to us by any saying of Jesus, nor does scr...
Read More

New Testament Scholarship

The Insufficiency of Literary Analysis Unaccompanied by Other Tools New Testament critics generally assume that our gospels are the product of a scribe having two or more editions before him, which he takes together to produce a new version that contains material from the old sources. They say this,...
Read More

The Synoptics and John

If you read Matthew, Mark, and Luke in a row, you get a “haven’t I read this before” feeling, because they are so similar to each other. In many places, they even have identical wording! For this reason, Bible scholars lump them together with the term “synoptic gospels.” The word “synoptic” means “t...
Read More

Leviticus For Christians

A few interesting laws from Leviticus, which at first glance don’t seem to concern us today: Forbidden leftovers When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the LORD, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf. It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day;...
Read More

Slavery and Sonship

Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”—John 8:34-36, NIV Notice that Jesus has the slave living in the house, albeit temporari...
Read More

Are There Contradictions in the Bible?

You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead, they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise yo...
Read More

The Rescue of Lot

The story of the destruction of Sodom and its sister city of Gomorrah is of compelling interest today because of the current debate in the churches over homosexuality. In the course of this debate, these two chapters of Genesis have been degraded from a story of God’s justice and providence to a dia...
Read More

Evolution and Creationism

Why does water boil? Fred and Ethel have different explanations. Fred says that heat causes the vapor pressure within the water to rise to the same level as the atmospheric pressure on its surface. That causes bubbles to form, which rise and break the surface.Ethel says that’s nonsense. The water wa...
Read More

Reading What Isn't There

“Judge others, but you are exempt from judgment. You must go out and tell it like it is, exposing sinners wherever you find them. You will receive a special bonus for each evil you expose.”—Matthew 7:1-2, Reversed Fractured Version “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you ju...
Read More

Wrong Impressions

Do you have a regular Bible study plan? Well, I’m so glad to hear that! You don’t? Well, maybe that is not so bad. You know, a lot of people who have a regular Bible reading plan are very systematic about it. Certainly you’ve met the type: they read a chapter a day, or some other arbitrary amount. I...
Read More

But Is it Biblical?

Recently I helped my boss decode a rather obtuse document, in which the writer had used obscure words instead of plain language. “This is,” I said, “an example of what happens when people go to the dictionary for permission instead of guidance,” and my boss thought that was an astute observation. Ju...
Read More

The Bible and Personal Revelation

God reveals Himself to us in nature, for Scripture says: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.Their voice goes out in...
Read More

The Inspiration of the Bible

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.—2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV Someone recently asked if I consider the Bible the inspired and inerrant word of God or if I fee...
Read More

Interpreting the Bible

When I work on interpreting Scriptural texts, I work through these layers: The probable meaning of the writer, which has to fit in with the writer’s environment.If it is an Old Testament text, the way the passage has been used and interpreted historically in Judaism.The way the passage has been used...
Read More