Anju No. 469 said:
"As far as your comment on translations, I'm not sure exactly what you are meaning. Can you explain your question a little better? I study Bible translation issues, so I may be able to respond if I'm sure of what you are asking. "
MW I moved this over to this thread.
I have always thought that unless we can find the original papyrus or paper or whatever the NT or OT was written on that everything is infallible.
I see what you are saying, and your view is not uncommon. Perhaps I can give you some things to consider, however.
I want to focus on the New Testament, as I have studied the texts of it a little more.
For historical writings, the way we can be sure of the accuracy is to consider how many copies we have, how they agree or disagree, and how long after the originals the copies we have date to. So, for example, I believe for Caesar's Gallic Wars, we have about 10 copies in existence, the earliest of which dates to about 1,000 years after Caesar originally wrote. Interestingly, no one really questions the accuracy of that writing (I may have the writing and date wrong, but the point remains, and I can try to find the specific examples if necessary). This is actually one of the best-attested historical pieces we have. Actually, we have one better...the New Testament.
The earliest fragment we have of the New Testament (a few verses of John's gospel) dates to about A.D. 120. It was written about A.D. 90. So, that is only a 30 year gap between the original writing and the earliest fragment. The entire NT was written between about A.D. 50 and A.D. 90. The earliest fragment is in A.D. 120, and we have about 20 fragments or so between that time and A.D. 300. Between A.D. 300 and A.D. 350, we find at least two full copies of the NT in Greek, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. In all, we have about 5,000 copies of the NT (in whole or in part) starting in A.D. 120 or so. Again, this is only 30 years after the last writing, and only 90 years after the events that the writings describe. So, for the NT we have a little over 5,000 copies, with only a 30-year gap from the writing to the earliest fragment, and only a 90-year gap from the events to the earliest fragment. Compare that to the 10 copies of Caesar's writings that date at earliest 1,000 years after he wrote them.
In addition to this, we have early copies of the NT in other languages, such as Latin, Syrian, etc. These copies raise the total greatly, though I don't remember how much, so I won't try to guess.
In addition to this, we have the quotes of the earliest church fathers (who started writing in the early second century, the 100s A.D.). It has been estimated that if one only took the quotes of the church fathers, the NT could be accurately constructed to within 95% of what the NT says.
Textual critics have studied the NT, and have compared variants (differences in wording, spelling, verses included/excluded, etc.), and have demonstrated that about 98-99% of the NT can be reconstructed with no questions about what it says. The remaining 1-2% in question doesn't alter a single issue of major doctrine, so it doesn't effect the teaching of the NT at all.
Also a lot of this is also word of mouth since not many people read in those days.
This is heavily debated as to who could and could not read. The Jewish people were "the people of the book" to a degree. Writing (as in the commandments of God) was very important, and many people would have taken turns reading in the synagogue (see Luke 4, I think), so it is possible that more could read than people assume.
Even so, those who couldn't read depended a lot on memory, and studies have shown that their memories were outstanding. Most could listen to something and quote it back with great accuracy (if not nearly perfect).
Not only so, but Jesus taught in ways to make His words easy to memorize. He used metaphors, which stood out, parables, stories, repetition, and other literary styles specifically geared to aid memory. In addition, Jesus had large numbers of people following and listening, and people at that time were very community oriented. So they would have gotten together and discussed, quoted, and corrected what was said with each other, reinforcing the accuracy in their own minds.
That being said, before the gospels were written, the communities would have already been circulating what Jesus said and what occurred with great accuracy, virtually solidifying what was said and keeping it accurate until it was written down.
Add to this that at least one of Jesus' disciples could have written. Matthew was a tax collector, and would have had to be literate and able to read and write. We don't know for sure, but he could have been something of a note-taker for Jesus. Again, this is not certainty, but it is at least possible.
Translation from the Greek, from the Latin, or whatever language, the words and meanings are not necessarily the same as we tend to interpret in "English". That is just my humble opinion, really not a question.
Modern translations today go straight from the Greek (for the NT) and Hebrew and Aramaic (for the OT).
That being said, while it is not perfect, translating from one language to another can render the message exactly as intended, even if the words are not exactly the same.
I am not sure if you speak another language or not. I took Spanish for several years, though sadly I have forgotten most of it. I remember, though, that while translation from one language to another didn't render the exact wording, the translation carried the exact same meaning.
For example, I remember learning "tengo sueno" for "I am tired." I think a very specific translation would be closer to "I have tiredness" or something like that. So, we don't translate it exactly as far as wording is concerned, but the message is exactly the same.
An example from Greek may help too. When it refers to Mary's pregnancy with Jesus, I believe the Greek literally says, "She was having it in the belly." Now, we don't say it that way in English; instead we would say, "She was pregnant" or "She was with child." So the wording may not be identical, but the message is.
In addition to this, we have various types of translations in English. The NASB is very literal (word-for-word), and tries to say exactly what the Greek words say. The NLT (which we are reading) is more dynamic (thought-for-thought), and tries to convey the message, even if paraphrasing is required. In addition, you can find interlinear translations, which render the Greek exactly, including sentence structure (which is odd in English). All of these are helpful, and all serve a different purpose. Taken together, however, we can rest assured that what we read is virtually identical to what is written in the NT and OT in their original languages.
I know you weren't asking for all of this information, but I hope it proves helpful to you and others here.
God bless.
?? Just a few of my thoughts.
