Words and Sacraments

by Helen Colwell Adams

Wrong-way wiki

June 21st, 2008 7:40 pm · 4 comments

How to take the Wiki thing way too far — try to translate the Bible that way:

The eclectic group includes a liberal Christian living in the United Arab Emirates and a Methodist financial counselor in Texas. Some claim to be formally trained in Biblical Hebrew and classical Greek; others, such as user John Kloosterman, admit to being “without qualifications of any kind.” The project will take a few years to complete and require constant refinement, says John Vandenberg, one of project’s main administrators. But “that is part of the beauty,” he writes. “It’s a laissez-faire translation.”

But Bible translation isn’t a laissez-faire project. (Oh, yeah, note to Newsweek: Classical Greek wouldn’t be a lot of help; the New Testament is written in Koine Greek, which is a commoners’ version of the language. Also, if you can read Greek, you should be able to sound it out!) 

There are so many potential problems in this, it’s hard to know where to begin: Which Hebrew and Greek texts are translators using? (There doesn’t seem to be any standard.) Do these folks even KNOW the original languages? (Not all of ‘em, apparently.) Do they understand the subtleties of the Greek participle? (Argh!)

I’ve taken Greek and Hebrew. I know enough to be able to make a rough translation of the text, with plenty of help from language software, lexicons and other aids — the point being that fighting through your own translation helps an exegete to identify critical words, phrases and other points in the text that make for fruitful teaching and preaching.

I wouldn’t presume to think I can do a better job of translating than the scholars who labor for years on Bible versions.

Even Bart Ehrman, the lapsed evangelical who was caught up in the “Gospel of Judas” hype, isn’t buying the Wiki Bible:

“Democratization isn’t necessarily good for scholarship,” says Bart Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who worked on the most recent translation of the New Revised Standard Version in 1988. “Those were the best Greek and Hebrew scholars in the country, and it took them 20 years.”

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  4 comments  Tags: Uncategorized

There are currently 4 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
Scout
6/21/08
8:32 PM
Man has been re-writing the Bible for hundreds of years. Denominations, and individual churches within denominations, have been taking what they agree with and leaving what they disagree with. Christians 300 years ago would be hard pressed to recognize today's Bible.

We have added, subtracted and interpreted our hearts out. It was originally, like everything else in history, passed down verbally, like a huge game of whisper down the lane. Then when copies were hand-written, human errors/editing occured. And even post-Gutenberg, typesetters can make errors, corrections, interpretations.

We do not know what the true original Biblical stories were. They have been used to discriminate against blacks, and interracial marriage, women and gays. The same texts are still there, we just have reinterpreted them.

If we continue this way for another couple hundred years, Christians of today will not recognize the Bible of the future. dry.gif

Rural Conservative
6/21/08
9:35 PM
QUOTE(Scout @ Jun 21 2008, 08:32 PM) [snapback]403694[/snapback]
Man has been re-writing the Bible for hundreds of years. Denominations, and individual churches within denominations, have been taking what they agree with and leaving what they disagree with. Christians 300 years ago would be hard pressed to recognize today's Bible.



Really? The King James translation is still around and unchanged since it was finalized in the 1700's...I believe that was roughly...300 years ago?

QUOTE


We have added, subtracted and interpreted our hearts out. It was originally, like everything else in history, passed down verbally, like a huge game of whisper down the lane. Then when copies were hand-written, human errors/editing occured. And even post-Gutenberg, typesetters can make errors, corrections, interpretations.


Passed down verbally? Then why do we have so many ancient manuscripts? As for errors in copying, that argument is highly suspect as the scribes who copied the scriptures were meticulous in their copying and the copies were checked and re-checked. The dead sea scrolls, discovered decades ago, have shown that our current manuscripts are remarkably accurate and virtually unchanged in comparison.

QUOTE

We do not know what the true original Biblical stories were. They have been used to discriminate against blacks, and interracial marriage, women and gays. The same texts are still there, we just have reinterpreted them.


Humans are sinful creatures. there will always be those who try to distort the truth to their own ends. This does not change the inerrant nature of the scriptures, but proves the nature of mankind.
QUOTE

If we continue this way for another couple hundred years, Christians of today will not recognize the Bible of the future. dry.gif


Oddly enough, the translations that exist today will still be available in some archive somewhere in 200 years...and in all likelyhood, there will still be some troglodites using the antiquated KJV.

Your arguments are filled with hystrionics and half truths. You write as one with very little knowledge of the subject who seems to be simply regurgitating things you have heard on the history channel or read in the paper.
John Vandenberg
6/22/08
7:01 AM
The Newsweek article is referring to the Wiki Bible translation being created on Wikisource, which is managed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

None of us who are mentioned in the Newsweek article are involved in thewikibible.pbwiki.com, and that site is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I share your concerns about the translation being done at pbwiki.com. I had not seen that project under I saw the printed Newsweek piece, which choose to use the buzzword "Wikipedia" even though Wikisource is a very different project to Wikipedia. As a result, I threw some probable search terms into Google, and found another project was highly ranked ( it appears that they care a lot about Google rank ). Some of their translations seem ok, but as you point out there is no documentation of sources.

On the other hand, on the Wikisource project that was mentioned in the Newsweek piece, all translation work must be accompanied with notes regarding which sources were used. For example, take a look at the discussion page for Genesis, Matthew, 2 John, or 1 Corinthians. It should be easy to see that the translators are indeed skilled in Bible translation, and many had been creating their own translations in solitude prior to joining the project; the purpose of this project is to allow translators to share their work, experience, and benefit from the criticisms and opinions of their peers.
frankomav47
6/22/08
9:08 AM
QUOTE(Scout @ Jun 21 2008, 08:32 PM) [snapback]403694[/snapback]
Man has been re-writing the Bible for hundreds of years. Denominations, and individual churches within denominations, have been taking what they agree with and leaving what they disagree with. Christians 300 years ago would be hard pressed to recognize today's Bible.

We have added, subtracted and interpreted our hearts out. It was originally, like everything else in history, passed down verbally, like a huge game of whisper down the lane. Then when copies were hand-written, human errors/editing occured. And even post-Gutenberg, typesetters can make errors, corrections, interpretations.

We do not know what the true original Biblical stories were. They have been used to discriminate against blacks, and interracial marriage, women and gays. The same texts are still there, we just have reinterpreted them.

If we continue this way for another couple hundred years, Christians of today will not recognize the Bible of the future. dry.gif





I guess they'll just have to put Jesus' picture on the cover . dry.gif

View Topic | Comment on this blog