The Formation of the book: A Quick Overview

We now enter the ongoing debate about not only the formation of but also the nature of scripture.  The intensity of this debate  has been made clear to me over the past few weeks as I have watched an ongoing discussion/argument about scripture in a forum on Linked-In.  The forum concerns whether or not Christians have to believe in the absolute literal nature of the creation texts (a 6 day/24 hour view) and thus of all of scripture.  Those who push for the 6/24 interpretation do so on the basis that the scriptures are literally God-breathed and thus perfect as regards history, science and wording.  In other words the original manuscripts contain the very dictation of God.  Those who disagree and believe that the universe is several billion years old argue that scripture, while being inspired by the Holy Spirit contains not the dictated words of God but saga, history, theology, poetry and prophetic announcements from human beings writing with particular pre-scientific world views.  This second approach is the one that I will take as we move forward and examine the history and use of scripture.

The exact means by which the Hebrew canon was compiled is shrouded in mystery and in the mists of time.  Most modern Biblical scholars take the view that the scriptures were composed and compiled over hundreds of years beginning with oral transmission and then only at a rather late date compiled into written form.  In terms of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) this oral transmission phase was probably carried out by at least four different groups referred to as J, E, D and P (this is the Documentary hypothesis).  The letters J, E, D and P refer to either the use of different names for God (J for YHWH and E for Elohim) or different foci (D for the focus on the exile as God’s judgment and P for a focus on the work of the priests). The dating of these sources ranges from 900-550 BCE with final editing perhaps around 450 BCE after the return from exile.  The Psalms were probably composed during the same 900-500 BCE period with the prophets coming between 700-500 BCE. The final piece of the OT, the writings and books such as Daniel could be as late as 140 BCE.  The current form of the Hebrew Bible was finalized somewhere between 200 BCE and 200 CE.
The New Testament was written between 45 CE and 100 CE.  The earliest portions of the NT are the letters of Paul.  The Apostle left the church with a wide variety of letters written to specific churches, groups of churches and individual Christians.  There are also a number of letters attributed to Paul which scholars believe were written by other people under Paul’s name.   Scholars believe this because the language, theology and emphases in the letters are different from those of the early Pauline letters (one example is that most of the “anti-woman” bias we sense in Paul’s letters comes from these later letters).  The Gospels were written between 60 CE and 90CE, with Mark being the first and John being the last.  We are not sure of their authorship (the names were attached at a later date) yet the church accepted them as reliable witnesses to the life and work of Jesus.  In terms of the final part of the NT, the writings and Revelation, scholars are all over the map in terms of dating. The NT canon (our current 27 books) was considered closed by the Western church somewhere around 397 CE.  

One interesting note is that the Bible as we know it (66 books) is a product of the Reformation.  The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have larger sets of scriptures.  The Roman church has an additional seven books, the Greek Orthodox has an additional eleven and other Orthodox churches have a few more than that.  Thus even what is considered to be scripture varies from tradition to tradition.  

My hope is that this very brief overview has given you a sense of not only the complex nature of Biblical composition, transmission and compilation but also of the enduring nature of the story it tells; that Judaism and Christianity kept telling and retelling these foundational faith stories across hundreds of years because they believed they were vital to giving godly shape and form to the life and work of God’s people.

The Formation of the book: the english bible

The history of the English Bible is a complicated story and so what follows is a very cursory look at the timeline of English translations.  If you would like to know more I encourage you to read Wide As the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired by Benson Bobrick.  He tells the story much better than I ever could. 

While most commentators give John Wycliffe (1320-1384) credit for the first English translation there were others (Bede, Aldhelm, Elfric and those who created the Lindidfarne Gospels) who had preceded him in translating significant portions of the scriptures into English.  While many of these early translations were basically extended commentaries more than accurate translations they paved the way for Wycliffe and those who followed.  Wycliffe actually offered two different translations.  The first attempted to follow the Latin text in word for word order, thus making it difficult to read.  The second translation attempted to use more common English grammar.  One last note about Wycliffe; many scholars now believe that Wycliffe did only a small portion of the actual translation of the scriptures that bear his name.  Most of the day to day work was done by his associates.

The next great leap forward in translations of the English Bible came with the production of the Tyndale Bible (early 1500s).  Tyndale’s translation was different because he used the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures as the basis for his work in addition to the Jerome’s Latin translation.  Tyndale was also the first to use the printing press to manufacture multiple copies of his work.  This translation was followed by the Great Bible translated by Coverdale (1539) and authorized by Henry VII; the Geneva Bible (1560) which was used by most English Protestants and was the first to be divided into verses; and the Bishop’s Bible (1568) which was authorized by Elizabeth I.  The most lasting of all the translations of this period was the King James Version (1611).  James I of England wanted a translation that would reflect the episcopal nature of the church and its practice of having ordained clergy.
In addition, and perhaps most importantly, it was to be translated in a manner that would allow it to be easily read and understood.  The King James Version was adopted by an Act of Parliament and slowly replaced all older versions.

The first major move to update the King James Version came in 1881-1894 with the publication of the Revised Version.  This version was the work of English and American scholars who were attempting to “adapt King James’ version to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom or vocabulary” as well as “to adapt it to the present standard of Biblical scholarship.”  This version gained rapid acceptance though it never really challenged the KJV.  The next major change came with the American Standard Version (1901).  The great leap forward in updating the language of scripture to more modern was the Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971).  The RSV was intended to be a readable and literally accurate version of the scriptures.  As such it began to supplant the KJV in many protestant denominations.  At the same time, especially in the Psalms, it maintained the poetic language of the KJV. 

The Revised Standard Version opened the door for all of the translations which would follow.  These included committee translations such as The New English Bible (1970), The Living Bible (1971), The New International Version (1978, 1984, 2011), The Good News Bible (1976, 1972), The New Revised Standard Version (1989), English Standard Version (2001, 2007, 2011).  There have also been versions created by individuals such as those of J.B. Phillips (1972) and the Message (2002) by Robert Alter.  Finally there are other newer translations in the works.

As you can see the speed at which new translation are being made continues to accelerate.  I would argue that this shows the power of the scriptures and the deep desire of persons to know and apply them to their lives.

the formation of the book: translating it

We turn now from the history of the Bible to some of the most basic issues of translation in order to better understand why translations can be so different.

We begin with choosing which of the original texts (mainly Hebrew and Greek) to translate.  The reality of all translation is that we do not have any of the original manuscripts of either the Old or New Testaments.  The Old Testament was copied over hundreds of years and an authoritative edition (The Masoretic Text) was arrived at between the 9th and 15th centuries as hundreds of texts were compared and decisions were made about which was the best reading.  In addition the Masoretes (Jewish Scholars) added vowel pointing to the Hebrew texts (Hebrew has no vowels only consonants).  This entailed making interpretive decisions because different Jewish words can have the same consonants and are only differentiated by their usage…so by adding vowel pointing the Masoretes decided the meaning of many words and texts.

Likewise the New Testament is contained in hundreds of early partial manuscripts and papyrus fragments.  The earliest Pauline and Gospel manuscripts we have are from around 200 CE, while the first complete New Testament is from about 300CE.  Fortunately most of the early manuscripts and papyrus are very similar.  While this does not clear up all issues of which text is best, it means regardless of the texts chosen, the basic outline of the Greek scripture will be very similar.

The second significant translation issue arises when deciding about whether to translate texts word for word or phrase for phrase.  The differences in the ability to understand the text can be considerable depending on which choice is made.  There are two major problems with word for word translating.  First there are often a wide variety of English words which correspond to the Hebrew/Greek words (so an interpretive choice has to be made). 

Second is the fact that meaning is usually transmitted by combinations of words as much as by the individual words themselves.   By translating word for word much of the original meaning can then be either lost or misrepresented.
 Phrase for phrase translations can be inaccurate as well because the translator has to decide the meaning that is being conveyed in the original language and then attempt to present that meaning in a new language and culture (again calling for interpretive choices).

The next issue concerns the choice between a very literal translation and a translation which attempts to maintain linguistic attributes such as poetry or metaphor.  Let’s look at metaphor.  An example might be the metaphor of “the way.”  A literal translation of the Hebrew might make the word “way” into “road”, as if the scripture was talking about a literal road.  The problem is that the word “way” while appearing to refer to a road might in fact be referring to following God.  A more literal translation then can lose the meaning of the original text, while at the same time being true to the words and phrases in the original language.

Finally we arrive at cultural relevance.  This is the issue of how to deal with ancient practices and concepts.  Should they be translated in a very literal manner or should a translator attempt to make these practices and concepts understandable in a new cultural context?  An example might be translating “new wine into old wineskins.”  A translator must decide if it is best to simply find the closest words to use, or to find a cultural example which conveys the meaning in a better way (a translator in Papua New Guinea translated it as new vegetables in old bamboo, because the effect would be the same…the new vegetables that are being cooked inside the old bamboo would burst out and be ruined).

The bottom line is that every Biblical translation we read is formed by hundreds of interpretive choices.  Our challenge then is not to dismiss scripture because of this…but to read the Bible with open eyes and open minds trusting the Spirit and the community to help us understand what is before us.

the formation of the book: INTERPRETING it

Regardless of how scripture is translated the bottom line is how it is interpreted.    As most of us are aware scripture has been used to justify virtually every manner of evil from slavery, to the Crusades, to the Holocaust.  In our current time it is used to “prove” that the universe is 10,000 years old, to force women into subservient roles in marriage and to attempt to discriminate against members of the LGBT community.  The flip side is that scripture has been used to support the abolition of slavery, the support of the weak and powerless, the end of segregation and apartheid, to just list a few of its positive uses.  The question then becomes how do we use it in a fashion which does both it and God justice?

I will begin by offering my views on what we ought not to do.  First we ought not to come to the scriptures simply looking for proof of our preconceived notions.  For if we do so we will find a verse which we can use to justify our own prejudices, even when those prejudices are not actually present in the scriptures.  Second we ought not to read all of scripture as if it is eye-witness reporting.  The scriptures have been shaped by culture, personal experience and a desire to offer particular theological insights.  In addition scripture is composed of saga, story, history, poetry, Gospel and letters; each written to and for a particular purpose and audience.  Finally we ought not to believe that ours or any person’s interpretation is the final word on what scripture calls us to believe and to do.  The Bible is a living book which is to be explored under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Thus interpretations can and often do change.
Now for those things we ought to do.  First we ought to take the time to research the setting and history of any piece of scripture we are reading.  This step is important because often the meaning that we, as 21st Century readers might bring to the text could be significantly different from the meaning in its original place and time.  I do not want to imply that scripture cannot carry multiple meanings, only that we do an injustice to the text and the author when we fail to attempt to discern what they were trying to say. 

 Second we ought to gain an overview of the entire Biblical narrative.  The reason for so doing is that one of the great orthodox understandings is that scripture interprets scripture.  This means that we are not to cherry pick single texts which agree with our beliefs and ignore those which do not.  This matters because not every part of scripture agrees with every other part. 

Third we ought to read each portion of the Bible for what it is; saga, poetry, parable, etc.  In this way we allow the scriptures to speak to us in the way they were originally intended to do. 

Finally I would offer that we ought to take scripture seriously.  What I mean by this is that the scriptures have been collected and preserved over more than 3,000 years as a way of shaping the life and work of God’s people; thus they deserve our serious attention.  They are here because they have become the sacred text for our community of faith.