When of one mind, Janus' views
form a composite of his two main sides. He attempts to consider issues with care and thoughtfulness, though he remains biased towards Christianity and Western
traditions. Outsiders might call him a Conservative, but in fact he is a Fundamentalist in that he promotes the Christian values that raised Western civilization to its peak.
One of the faces, looking to our right and called Patulcius, is the headstrong and determined side of Janus, tending to authoritarian ideals. Patulcius looks to history and upholds the traditions of
Christianity and Western civilization, and the well-being of Western nations. Patulcius sees world events as a struggle between divine and demonic
forces.
The other face—the easy-going, more open-minded, left-facing Clusivius—dislikes authority and prefers a more individualistic outlook. Clusivius looks to the future and contemplates changes. While
Christian, Clusivius takes an interest in the well-being of other civilizations as well as the Western. Clusivius tends to believe that elitist conspiracies play a major part in world events.
When possible, the complete Janus seeks to form a synthesis of the two sides when making a decision. At other times Janus allows any differences to stand without resolution. But now and again the two sides must battle one another until one side wins Janus' acceptance.
Tending to sensationalize, and sometimes to hyperbolize, C. F. van Niekerk over-analyzes any number of subjects from mundane minutiae to the great philosophical questions of life itself.
Barzillai Alpheus Bozarth claims to be a 19th Century man marooned in the 21st Century after a failed experiment in inter-dimensional travel. Not at all impressed with the wonders of our time, he would give just about anything to return to his beloved world of "horse manure and civilized etiquette". Barzillai writes historical observations and pores over old books and documents.
We don't know what to make of the Wanderer. He walks in with the moon and rolls out with the wind. He uses no name; the smells of rank sweat, dirt, and smoke mark him as much as anything. He's always near, but never close. Heedless of human ideals and bounds, he stands unyielding for honor on the ground. He's practical to a fault when he's not romantic to even greater fault. He says little, but when he does finally speak, we listen up. The Wanderer is our lawman of final resort. By hook or by crook, he sees a job done, just don't ask how. Frankly, we're a little afraid of the Wanderer.
Nature can be cruel to mankind.
If Concussus had his way, nature would be crueler yet. Concussus tends to arrive at the blackest of times, when humanity seems the most despicable.
Diabolus, the devil's advocate. Sometimes we are tempted to embrace the evil world that we despise. Diabolus is there to encourage us in this folly. Fortunately a rare visitor here.
– 21 April 2023 –
Katáxiros:
The question of translations is very contested among English-speaking Christians.
The difficulty stems from the fact that regardless of the version of the Bible, it amounts to an imperfect translation from the original languages. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament written in Koine Greek, so any English version of the Bible will have some variance, in the specifics, from both languages.
The next difficulty arises, at least in modern times, from the translation philosophies of two general camps: the scholarly/secular and the hierarchical/traditional.
Scholarly/Secular
The scholarly or secular translators, whether they believe in the truth of Christianity or not, tend to approach the Bible the way they would approach the translation of any other ancient text.
First, they will tend to prefer the oldest texts over newer texts, even if the quantity and variety of the newer texts show remarkable consistency, even if the use of the older manuscript is unknown or questionable.
Second, they compartmentalize the Scriptures as historical works unto themselves, regarding the historical and hierarchical use of the texts throughout Church history as considerably less relevant. The fact that the commonly used texts across Church history were served in Liturgies, quoted by saints, and protected by the Holy Spirit, matter very little, if at all.
The scholarly/secular approach to Bible translation has led to hundreds of various translations of scripture with various spins on the translation (literal/dynamic, from many sources or few, colloquial/classical, etc.), most of them appearing since the 19th century, most of them under copyright and sold as exclusive intellectual property by those who funded the translations or bought the rights to profit from their sale.
Often the translators claim to use the most modern archaeological discoveries and scholarly findings of the most ancient texts to arrive at the most accurate translations.
Hierarchical/Traditional
In the English language, the hierarchical and traditional approach to Bible translations, in turn, fall into two general camps: those who uphold the King James translation and those who prefer translations from sources that Roman Catholics and/or the Eastern Orthodox have traditionally used.
Among certain Protestants—today’s stalwart King-James-only adherents, for example—the King James Bible, translated in 1611, has stood the test of time with very few modifications since that time. Many of them rightly point out that the King James Bible has resisted any influence by modernists or modern attitudes that can unwittingly express themselves in more recent translations. Many also claim that the Greek Received Text (Textus Receptus), based on seven available Greek sources in the 16th century, provides the most accurate translation for the New Testament Greek; and the Masoretic Hebrew texts provide the most accurate source of the King James’ Old Testament translation. Of course, those are the two overall sources used in the King James version.
Textus Receptus vs. Majority Text vs. Alexandrian Text-Type for the New Testament
The Textus Receptus source of the Greek used for the King James and other Reformation-era translations was printed by Erasmus in the 16th century.
The Majority Text, or Byzantine Text-Type, comes from thousands of sources of Greek used by churches throughout the middle ages. A translation based on the Majority Text looks for the overall consensus of the various examples from the Greek.
The Alexandrian Text-Type comes from fewer but more ancient manuscripts that show relatively more variety from one another, and most modern New Testament translations use these manuscripts as their main source of the original Greek.
The Textus Receptus and Byzantine majority sources would tend to show greater agreement with one another, relatively speaking, than the Alexandrian manuscripts, as the sources of the Textus Receptus would belong to the overall Byzantine Text-Type. The Byzantine texts, or their translations, are what the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have used for the majority of their histories.
Masoretic vs. Septuagint vs. Peshitta vs. The Dead Sea Scrolls for the Old Testament
The Masoretic text that served as the source of the Old Testament for the King James translation came from a sect of Jews called the Masoretes from the 7th to 10th centuries AD. This sect was known for their very exacting techniques to ensure the most accurate transcriptions of the Hebrew scriptures, but they do vary from the Septuagint in some noteworthy ways.
The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Koine Greek for the Ptolemic Pharoah by 72 Jewish scholars in the 3rd century BC. The New Testament gospels mostly quote from this translation of the Old Testament, and the Church has historically used the Septuagint ever since then.
The Peshitta was copied from the Hebrew to Syriac in the 2nd Century BC, and this translation has been historically used in many of the ancient Levantine and Oriental churches.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were holy writings and scriptures that were discovered in the mid-20th century in the Qumran caves of what is now Israel, preserved in the desert and dated from the 1st to 3rd centuries BC. They have provided important revelations as to the authenticity of various scriptural translations since then, though they do show some inconsistencies among themselves in their language.
Most modern English translations use some combination of all of these texts, if they were available, with a heavy emphasis on the Masoretic Hebrew. The Early Church, and the Orthodox Church, tended to use the Septuagint (or the Peshitta in the Oriental Churches, which resembles the Septuagint more than any other sources.)
Which Translation is Best?
The answer is fairly easy for a traditional Orthodox Christian. Translations that are based on the Greek Septuagint that were used by the Church are best for the Old Testament.
Regarding the Church’s view on the Septuagint, Fr. John Whiteford had this to say:
There was a time when many Protestant scholars assumed that the Septuagint was an often loose translation of the Hebrew text, and that when it differed from the Masoretic text, it was due to changes made by the translators. However, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know that the Septuagint is based on a different, and older Hebrew text than the Masoretic text.
The Hebrew Text that has served as the basis for most translations of the Old Testament into English is based almost entirely on the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008 A.D. In comparison to the textual evidence that we have for the New Testament Greek text, this is a very late manuscript. It is an example of the Masoretic recension, which is usually dated to have been shaped between the 6th and 10th centuries A.D. This is well after the Septuagint was translated (3rd century before Christ), the Peshitta (1st and 2nd Centuries A.D.), or the Latin Vulgate (4th Century A.D.). According to Christian tradition, the non-Christian Jews began making changes in the Old Testament text to undercut the Christian use of Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of Christ. In any case, the Hebrew Text that we now have was preserved outside the Church. The Septuagint and Peshitta texts were preserved within the Church, and so the Church believes that the text of the Old Testament was been authoritatively preserved in these textual traditions.
Furthermore, it is clear that the text that Christ and the Apostles used most closely matches the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text.
For the New Testament in English, today’s Orthodox Church is admittedly less clear and authoritative, though they historically used translations based on the available Greek texts of their times. It therefore seems best, using the same logic of why we use the Septuagint for Old Testament translations, to use translations for the New Testament that are based on the Majority or Byzantine Greek texts that the Church used throughout its history.
Interestingly, the widely popular Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James translation of the New Testament, which isn’t based on the original King James at all, and in fact is a modern translation that attempts to emulate the style of the King James while mainly using the Alexandrian texts as its source.
[Correction on 22 April 2023: Somehow, for years, I have had the misconception that New Testament translation of the NKJV was based on the Alexandrian texts like any other modern translation, but that is not so! In fact, the New Testament was newly translated from the Textus Receptus, just as the original King James version was, though reference was made at times to other sources where the Textus Receptus wasn’t clear. This makes the Orthodox Study Bible a considerably better Bible than I realized, as it contains a Byzantine-based New Testament and a Septuagint-based Old Testament, as well as quotations on Scripture from many early saints.]
But, overall, the original or authorized King James Bible, based on examples of the Byzantine Text-Type, serves as a better translation of the New Testament than any modern translation, though other translations (few as they are), which are based on the Majority/Byzantine texts, will serve just about as well.
For Roman Catholics, anything based on those sources is best, and the Douey-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate should serve, even though it amounts to a translation of translations.
What About Protestants?
The question for Protestants is a trickier one.
Most traditional Protestants adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura, that the authority of God is solely represented on earth in the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures, that the highest authority in Christianity, at least apart from God Himself, is the Holy Bible. It logically follows from that premise, for the most part, that the original languages of the Scriptures, as they were written by their Divinely-guided authors, present the most accurate representation of God’s will for humanity on earth. Therefore, the translation is critically important.
Since the scholarly or traditional camps both argue outside the authority of a hierarchical, apostolic Church, then there is no resolution to their arguments except in individual choice or—less often these days—local church authority. Just as Protestantism itself amounts to some individual’s personal interpretation of God’s will at some point in history, based on individual understandings (or misunderstandings, oftentimes) of Scripture. And right or wrong ends up being determined by some kind of earthly force.
Of course, someone could argue that it’s the same with the Roman or Orthodox churches, that the interpretations arise from fallen, if inspired, men, and that these interpretations are imposed by earthly force, and that’s certainly true. But there are two key differences: the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox churches arrive at their understandings collectively, with unity (at least within themselves); and the Romans and Orthodox don’t follow Sola Scriptura but also rely on the traditional authority of the Church as Christ founded it. (Now how well they adhere to that traditional authority can certainly be questioned, especially regarding the innovations of the Roman Catholics over the years, but the fact that they both, at least in theory, require apostolic authority to uphold the interpretations of Holy Scripture, insulates them, once again in theory, from innovations of understanding and interpretation.)
So, while the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox rely on apostolic authority and Church tradition to arrive at the correct interpretation of scripture, Protestants don’t. So the question is more significant, but more relative.
Fortunately, the question isn’t quite as critical as it seems.
Most Serious Translations of the Bible are Essentially the Same!
Via Septuagint.net:
Since the Septuagint is a translation, scholars speculate if it accurately reflects the Hebrew scriptures of the 2nd century BC. A close examination of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (the early Hebrew text of the Old Testament) show slight variations. Were these errors in translation, or are the Septuagint and Masoretic Text based on slightly different Hebrew manuscripts? The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has helped to shed light on this question. Discovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Does this mean that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is wrought with contradictory sources? No. It is imperative to note that these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.) None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying (Hebrew scribal rules attest to how exacting scribes were). Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it would be clarified in several other places in scripture.
[. . .]
The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls establish a very dramatic piece of evidence for Christianity – that the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah unquestionably predated the time that Jesus Christ walked the earth. All theories of 1st Century AD conspiracies and prophecy manipulation go out the door when we realize that prophetic scripture like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 were fixed in written form at least 100 years before Christ, and probably many more. Again, despite time, persecution, and the incredibly minor instances of scribal mistakes, the Septuagint is just another example of how the Biblical text has remained faithful in its message and theme. The Holy Bible is truly a divinely inspired and preserved letter from God that is deserving of our time and attention.
For years, I have preferred to read the Classic Amplified translation of the Bible for my regular reading of Scripture, as it clarifies the possible meanings of often difficult language and concepts. The Amplified Bible just reads better for me to understand. Yet it is a modern translation!
So having reached the conclusion that the Septuagint provided the most authoritative translation source for the Old Testament, and that the Textus Receptus or Byzantine texts provided the best sources for the New Testament, I sought to find such a Bible somewhere. And only found a few in physical form, and none with the Apocrypha.
So I looked into compiling my own printed Bible from different translations, which presented various difficulties. I also wanted something in relatively modern English, which complicated the matter further. Ultimately I chose the Updated King James Bible for the New Testament—which minimally updates the language of the King James while still clarifying singular and plural second-person cases—and the Septuagint in British/International English 2012—an updated-language-version of Brenton‘s English Septuagint translated in 1844. Yet the logistics of this proved to be somewhat unsatisfactory, as well as the results (not as satisfying or useful as the Amplified!)
So, frustrated, I decided to compare some verses that critics of modern translations, or critics of the Septuagint versus the Masoretic translations, pointed out as problematic.
Examples
The following is an example from another article that considers different Bible translations:
- Isaiah 49:23 King James Version (KJV): “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.”
- Isaiah 49:23 New King James Version (NKJV): “Kings shall be your foster fathers, And their queens your nursing mothers; They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth, And lick up the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord, For they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.”
- Isaiah 49:23 New International Version (NIV): “Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord; those who hope in me will not be disappointed.”
- Isaiah 49:23 Classic Amplified Version (AMPC): “And kings shall be your foster fathers and guardians, and their queens your nursing mothers. They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth and lick up the dust of your feet; and you shall know [with an acquaintance and understanding based on and grounded in personal experience] that I am the Lord; for they shall not be put to shame who wait for, look for, hope for, and expect Me.”
- Ezias 49:23 Septuagint in British/International English (LXX2012-UK): “And kings shall be your nursing fathers, and their princesses your nurses, they shall bow down to you on the face of the earth, and shall lick the dust of your feet; and you shall know that I am the Lord, and they that wait on me shall not be ashamed.”
These verses say the same thing overall, though small details do vary. Let’s look at another example from a source that prefers the Septuagint and criticizes the Masoretic:
- Psalm 40:6 King James Version (KJV): “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.”
- Psalm 40:6 New King James Version (NKJV): “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.”
- Psalm 40:6 New International Version (NIV): “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—but my ears you have opened—burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.”
- Psalm 40:6 Classic Amplified Version (AMPC): “Sacrifice and offering You do not desire, nor have You delight in them; You have given me the capacity to hear and obey [Your law, a more valuable service than] burnt offerings and sin offerings [which] You do not require.”
- Psalms 39(40):6 Septuagint in British/International English (LXX2012-UK): “Sacrifice and offering you would not; but a body have you prepared me: whole burnt offering and sacrifice for sin you did not require.”
Certainly the phrase “but a body you have prepared me” is omitted from all of the texts that are based on the Masoretic sources, but is included in those from the Septuagint. This is a significant omission, as it points to the coming of Jesus Christ and His rejection by ungrateful Jews. Yet even in this case, the criticism of the Lord’s people is clear, and certainly other places in the Bible, even the Masoretic translations, point to Christ’s life, sacrifice, and resurrection.
One last example, jumping into the debate that tangentially involves the Majority Text/Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian, concerning what is called the Johannine Comma:
- 1 John 5:7-8 King James Version (KJV): “7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And 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 New King James Version (NKJV): “7 For there are three that bear witness [a]in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.”
- 1 John 5:7-8 New International Version (NIV): “7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
- 1 John 5:7-8 Classic Amplified Version (AMPC): “7 So there are three witnesses [a]in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One; 8 and there are three witnesses on the earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree [are in unison; their testimony coincides].”
- 1 John 5:7-8 English Majority Text Version (EMTV): “7 For there are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.”
This is an interesting case where different translations differ almost randomly over a matter with seemingly potential theological ramifications. However, once again, the Bible isn’t merely a bundle of standalone verses, but requires an understanding of context, and it frequently repeats the same idea elsewhere. In fact, the verse immediately preceding these two verses does much to clarify the meaning, regardless of the Johannine Comma: “6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.”
Conclusion
So, what English translations of the Bible are the most reliable or preferable?
As an Orthodox Christian, I stand by the source material that the Church has historically used throughout its history and traditions. This is the Byzantine text Old Testament and the Septuagint for the Old Testament.
Yet, the variants differ so little from one to the other that most of the major English translations serve well enough to convey the overall message of Christianity to the earnest seeker of Truth. I still intend to read my Amplified Bible for casual reading.
The fact is, the Bible is not our God. Jesus didn’t come to earth to write a book; He established a Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the authority of His disciples passed in turn to their disciples, and onward. Without the guidance of the Church throughout the ages, by apostolic succession and Holy Tradition, then difficulties arise in Biblical interpretation. Apostolic authority and Holy Tradition and the testaments of the saints all stand in conjunction with one another, with none of them conflicting with the Holy Scriptures if they are understood in the big picture.
However, even for those who reject Apostolic succession, the books of the Bible represent a whole picture, with context within each book, and they tell a whole story, so that it’s still possible to gain a more thorough understanding of our Lord, guided by His grace and His Spirit, when one avoids getting too tangled in the weeds of isolated verses taken out of context.
So in general, regarding Bible versions and translations, choose those that don’t deviate from the traditional understandings and attitudes of the Faith, and reject those that introduce any innovations and deviations.
FINES ET INITIA 
Jeremy P. Madsen
/ 22 April 2023Janus, I’m flattered that you used an article of mine (the Preceptsofpower.com article) as an example in your piece!
You make some excellent and interesting points about source texts, textual criticism, and which textual/translation tradition to follow. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your analysis and thoughts.
LikeLike
Janus
/ 23 April 2023Thank you very kindly, sir, for taking the time to comment on this tendentious, backwater site.
I’m ashamed to admit that I only skimmed your article:in passing when I was rushing to get my own article out. (Too often I’m rushing to write articles and I end up working too sloppily!)
Having now read your work more carefully, I further find your piece on the subject of Bible translations to be a balanced, nuanced, and informative article that neutrally weighs the various options while admirably upholding your own faithful adherence to LDS teachings. (I tend to admire those who demonstrate loyalty to their own rigorous faith and traditions—so long as these reflect the overall Divine Order—and from a casual scrutiny, your writings consistently do just that!) In fact, I do admire much of what I see from the people in the LDS churches, even if I can’t share all of your understandings.
Thank you!
LikeLike