Meaning over mechanical replication

1. The Apostolic Precedent: Functional Equivalence

The most significant influence the disciples have on modern translation is the validation of Functional (or Dynamic) Equivalence. This is the theory that a translation should convey the thought and impact of the original text, even if it requires changing grammatical structures or specific words.

• Contextual Adaptation: Just as Matthew 12 smoothed out Isaiah’s "Servant Song" to make it cleaner and more idiomatic for Greek readers, modern translators are justified in smoothing out Hebrew or Greek syntax to make it readable for English (or Spanish, Chinese, etc.) speakers.

• Clarification of Meaning: Mark 5:41 provides a literal sound ("Talitha koum") but immediately follows it with a meaningful translation. This influences modern Bibles to use footnotes or inline explanations to ensure the reader understands cultural context, rather than leaving them confused by a literalism.

2. Theology Over Rigid Syntax

Paul in (Ephesians 4:8) changed a verb from "received" (in Psalm 68) to "gave" to make a theological point about Christ.¹

• Influence on Modern Translation: This teaches modern translators that the theological intent of a passage is paramount. A "word-for-word" translation that obscures the theology is actually a worse translation than a paraphrase that clarifies the theology. The Apostles demonstrated that Scripture is a living revelation, not a static artifact.

3. The Rejection of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" as Rigidity

Strict adherence to exact wording (as demanded by some strict "King James Only" or VPP proponents) is historically inconsistent with how the Bible was written.

• Influence on Modern Translation: This liberates modern translators from the pressure of maintaining the sentence structure of the King James Version (the "17th-century English committee" mentioned). It suggests that "faithfulness" to the text means being faithful to the message the Holy Spirit intended, just as Matthew applied Hosea’s "Out of Egypt" text to Jesus rather than historical Israel.

Conclusion 

The New Testament writers were the first "Dynamic Equivalent" translators.

The Apostles and Evangelists did not view Scripture as a fragile list of words that would break if rearranged. Instead, they viewed it as a robust source of truth that could be reshaped, remixed, and paraphrased to reveal Christ.

• When Matthew compressed Hosea to apply it to Jesus, he prioritized typology over chronology.

• When Paul fused two Isaiah passages in Romans, he prioritized theological impact over textual preservation.

• When Mark translated Aramaic, he prioritized audience comprehension over linguistic purity.

Therefore, modern translation methodologies which prioritize "meaning-driven" renderings are not liberal deviations; they are, in fact, apostolic.

If the very authors of the New Testament—under divine inspiration—felt free to modify the wording of the Old Testament to ensure the sense was clear and the Christology was accurate, then modern translators are standing on firm biblical ground when they do the same. To demand a strict, word-for-word freezing of the text is to hold the Bible to a standard that the Apostles themselves never practiced. The disciples proved that the power of Scripture lies not in the "exact syllables of a previous manuscript," but in the living, communicative message of God.