Preservation of the Old Testament

THE THREE STEPS

The principles operative in the historical process of canonization are three: (1) inspiration by God; (2) recognition by men of God; and (3) collection and preservation of the books by the people of God.

Inspiration by God: God took the first step in canonization when He inspired the books. Thus, the simple answer to the question as to why there are only thirty-nine books in the Old Testament canon is that those are all that God inspired. Obviously, if God did not inspire and thus give divine authority to a book, no council of men could ever do it.

Recognition by men of God: Once God gave a book its authority, men of God assented to that authority by their recognition of it as a prophetic utterance. There is every reason to believe that this recognition followed immediately upon the publication of the message. As Edward J. Young states, “There is no evidence that these particular books existed among the ancient Jews for many years before they were recognized as canonical. Indeed, if a book was actually revealed by God, is it conceivable that such a book would circulate for many years before anyone recognized its true nature?”1 The evidence, in fact, is to the contrary. Moses’ writings were received in his day (Ex. 24:3; Jos. 1:8). Joshua’s book was added to the canon immediately (Josh. 24:26). Daniel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, had received the latter’s book along with “the books” (Dan. 9:2).

Collection and preservation by the people of God: Moses’ books were collected and preserved beside the Ark (Deut. 31:26). “Samuel told the people the ordinances of the kingdom, and wrote them in the book and placed it before the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25). Daniel had a collection of “the books,” and there is every indication throughout the Old Testament that prophetic writings were collected as soon as they were written. During Josiah’s day, the “law of Moses” was “found in the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 23:24–25), where it had been stored. Proverbs 25:1 notes that “these … are the proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, transcribed.” Ezra the priest had preserved a copy of “the law of Moses” that he brought with him out of Babylon after the captivity (Ezra 7:6). Therefore, inspiration produced the canonical books, and subsequent recognition and collection preserved them for posterity.

1 Edward J. Young, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” in Carl F. H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible, p. 163.

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago: Moody Press.

Medieval Monasteries

Medieval Monasteries. The medieval Church of the Dark Ages developed four monastic orders between the sixth and 13th centuries: the Benedictines, Cisterians, Franciscans, and Dominicans. The monks from these monasteries became the missionaries who took the story of Christianity to many heathen nations—like St. Patrick, who evangelized Ireland in the fifth century.

The monasteries gave hospitality to travelers, the sick, and the poor. Both the modern hotel and modern hospital grew out of the hospice or monastery. By helping to convert the barbarian tribes, the Vikings, and others, they continued to spread the message of the gospel even in dark times. They also preserved the truths of the Word of God by faithfully producing many copies of the Bible by hand copying the Bible word by word.

Hamon, Bill. 2003. The Eternal Church: A Prophetic Look at the Church—Her History, Restoration, and Destiny. Revised Edition. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image® Publishers, Inc.

THE BIBLE’S PRESERVATION

THE BIBLE’S PRESERVATION

A ninth reason for believing the Bible to be the Word of God is its extraordinary preservation down through the centuries of Old Testament and church history. Today, after the Bible has been translated in part or whole into hundreds of languages, some with multiple versions, and after millions of copies of the sacred text have been printed and distributed, it would be a nearly impossible feat to destroy the Bible. But these conditions did not always prevail.

Until the time of the Reformation, the biblical text was preserved by the laborious and time-consuming process of copying it over and over again by hand, at first onto papyrus sheets and then onto parchments. Throughout much of this time the Bible was an object of extreme hatred by many in authority. They tried to stamp it out. In the early days of the church, Celsus, Porphyry, and Lucian tried to destroy it by arguments. Later the emperors Diocletian and Julian tried to destroy it by force. At several points it was actually a capital offense to possess a copy of parts of Holy Writ. Yet the text survived.

If the Bible had been only the thoughts and work of human beings, it would have been eliminated long ago in the face of such opposition, as other books have been. But it has endured, fulfilling the words of Jesus, who said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mt 24:35). (Boice, James Montgomery. 2019. Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology. Revised & Expanded. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.)

Reflection:

The Textus Receptus (TR), the Greek text underlying the King James Version (KJV), is not considered a perfect replica of the original autographs. Scholars generally agree that it is not an exact replica of the original autographs.

AUTHORIZED VERSION

 AUTHORIZED VERSION

Porter, Stanley E. 2013. How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and Craig A. Evans. Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

There is little that needs to be said about the Authorized Version of 1611 (also known as the King James Version) that has not already been said elsewhere.72 King James, not sharing the Calvinistic theology of the Geneva Bible, welcomed the proposal in 1603 of a new translation. He commissioned six groups of translators, involving roughly fifty-seven translators in all, to perform the translational work. Three groups worked on the Old Testament, two on the New Testament, and one on the Apocrypha. Their drafts were revised by a smaller group and then published. Common names and ecclesiastical wording were retained, while added words were put in italics. Although the Authorized Version is a translation in its own right, in the sense that the scholars involved probably used Beza’s fifth edition for the Greek New Testament (according to F. H. A. Scrivener, though some think that a version of Stephanus from 1550 was used),73 it is also a major revision in that it was based upon the Bishops’ Bible and ended up retaining such a high percentage of Tyndale’s wording.74 The early editions of the Authorized Version were full of all kinds of mistakes, such as rendering Matthew 23:24 with “strain at a gnat” instead of “strain out a gnat,” a mistake that was retained in subsequent editions. The edition of 1631 left the word “not” out of the seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery,” for which the printer was fined, and this Bible became known as the “Wicked Bible.” In an edition of 1795 Mark 7:27 was rendered “Let the children first be killed” (instead of “filled”). Another has “the dogs liked his blood” in 1 Kings 22:38 (rather than “licked up”), and, finally (for my list, not finally for the list of all errors and misprints!), Psalm 119:161 is rendered “Printers [rather than “princes”] have persecuted me without a cause.” Despite these difficulties, the Authorized Version, because of its official support—though no one has any official record of its being “authorized” by the government—and the quality of its resulting language, in large part because of Tyndale’s prior work but also because of the intentions of those involved, became the Bible of the English-speaking world, only finally being challenged in the nineteenth century. Even so, there have been a number of efforts to revise it and keep it current, including the New King James Version (1979)75 and the 21st Century King James Version (1994). 

Footnotes:

72 The year 2011 celebrated the four-hundredth anniversary of the first publication of the Authorized Version. As a result, many works were written about it in the years leading up to the celebration. Some are exercises in hagiography rather than historical, cultural, or linguistic investigation. The translators’ own words are captured in Erroll F. Rhodes and Liana Lupas, eds., The Translators to the Reader: The Original Preface of the King James Version of 1611 Revisited (New York: American Bible Society, 1997). A reasonable history is Adam Nicolson, God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 2003). A linguistic treatment by a significant linguist is David Crystal, Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). A specialized treatment of the individuals involved is Gustavus S. Paine, The Men behind the King James Version (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959). Two collections of essays on various related issues are David G. Burke, ed., Translation That Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible, BSNA 23 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009) (unfortunately, the photo on the cover is not of a portion of Hampton Court Palace in existence during the time of James, but a portion added under William and Mary); David Lyle Jeffrey, ed., The King James Bible and the World It Made (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011). A fascinating book is Ward Allen, trans. and ed., Translating for King James (London: Allen Lane Penguin, 1970), an edition of the only set of notes taken by a member involved in the revision stage of the Authorized Version.

73 Stanley E. Porter, “Language and Translation of the New Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, ed. John W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 197.

74 Bruce, History of the Bible, 97–98.

75 Arthur L. Farstad, The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition (Nashville: Nelson, 1989).

Textus Receptus contains several textual errors and additions over time

It's entirely possible that the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that formed the basis for many English translations like the King James Version, contains additional words that were not originally part of the biblical text.   

The Johannine Comma is a prime example of this. This passage, 1 John 5:7-8, is absent from the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. It appears to have been added later, possibly in Latin translations. Its inclusion in the Textus Receptus highlights the potential for textual errors and additions over time.  

While the Johannine Comma is a particularly well-known example, it's important to note that textual criticism is a complex field, and scholars continue to debate the exact wording of the original biblical text. Modern translations are based on careful analysis of multiple ancient manuscripts and seek to provide the most accurate rendering of the original text.

Therefore, while the Textus Receptus has historical significance, it's not considered the most reliable source for the original text of the New Testament.

Excursus: Johannine Comma

Akin, Daniel L. 2001. 1, 2, 3 John. Vol. 38. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

1 John 5:7-8

    In versions following the (so-called) Textus Receptus or Received Text (KJV and NKJV) there is an additional section of v. 7 known as the Comma Johanneum or the Johannine Comma (Gk., comma = sentence or clause). Here vv. 7 and 8a read, “For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the …” Why do most modern versions demote this additional section to a mere footnote? Are modern versions deliberately less Trinitarian than classic translations such as the KJV? The question involved in deciding whether this verse is authentic is not based on the truthfulness of the statement but on the external manuscript evidence. In other words, just because a statement is true does not make it Scripture. One must look at why and how the Johannine Comma came to be adapted into the Greek Edition of the New Testament known as the Textus Receptus (A.D. 1633). This is not a question of the inspiration of the text but of the transmission of the text. John’s letter, whatever the original, is inerrant. What must be established is what the autographs actually said.

  The oldest textual witnesses of this text occur in Latin manuscripts of the seventh century. With its eventual acceptance in the Latin Vulgate (Clementine edition, 1592), the Johannine Comma began to appear in many other translations and versions. It only appears in eight Greek manuscripts (minuscules), none of which can be dated before 1400. Furthermore, it is clear that the text has been translated from Latin back into Greek, and in four of the eight manuscripts the Johannine Comma appears only in the margin of the text. If the text is authentic, then its disappearance in the early manuscripts is an absolute mystery. Why would the church be so careless as to let such a valuable text be forgotten?

  It should be noted that not only does the manuscript evidence strongly favor the omission of this passage, but the same is true concerning the testimony of the early church. Not one Greek or Latin Church Father ever quotes this passage in the first four and a half centuries. This is especially revealing in light of the many controversies revolving around the Trinity (especially Sabellianism and Arianism). If the Johannine Comma was a part of the original text, then what would be a better passage to quote in order to prove the Trinity? Nicea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) almost certainly would have taken advantage of it. The absence of such usage causes one to doubt seriously the authenticity of this passage.

  Erasmus, a prominent New Testament Greek scholar of the fifteenth century, rejected the Johannine Comma in the first two editions of his Greek New Testament (1516, 1519). Soon, however, he began to receive criticism for his omission of the Johannine Comma. The Englishman E. Lee was one of Erasmus’s constant critics. After being criticized by Lee for several years, Erasmus wrote to Lee the following reply, “If a single manuscript had come into my hands, in which stood what we read (sc. In the Latin Vulgate) then I would certainly have used it to fill in what was missing in the other manuscripts I had. Because that did not happen; I have taken the only course which was permissible, that is, I have indicated (sc. In the Annotationes198) what was missing from the Greek manuscripts.”199

  Later, Lee suggests that Erasmus was negligent and that if he only had looked at other manuscripts he would have certainly found a copy that contained the Johannine Comma. Erasmus again explained to Lee that he had diligently consulted many manuscripts. He continues: “What sort of indolence is that, if I did not consult manuscripts which I could not manage to have? At least, I collected as many as I could. Let Lee produce a Greek manuscript in which is written the words lacking in my edition, and let him prove that I had access to this manuscript, and then let him accuse me of indolence.”200 Shortly thereafter, a Greek manuscript containing the Johannine Comma was shown to Erasmus.201 It is almost certain that this manuscript was produced simply to induce Erasmus to include the Johannine Comma in his Greek New Testament. Even though Erasmus suspected this Greek manuscript to have been based on the Latin, there is doubt as to whether Erasmus knew that the manuscript had been created for the purpose of encouraging him to include the Johannine Comma.202 In the third edition of his Greek New Testament, Erasmus included the extra text (although he omitted the passage from later editions).

  After Erasmus included the additional words of 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament, others began to accept it without question. It was later included in Stephanus’s edition (1550), which was a precursor to the Textus Receptus—the basis for the KJV.

  Is the Johannine Comma Scripture? The evidence seems to say no. Is the Johannine Comma truthful? Is it sound theology? Yes. It is not necessary, however, to place the Johannine Comma in the text of Scripture. The Trinity can be adduced from many other texts of Scripture (e.g., Matt 28:18–20; 1 Cor 12:4–6; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 1:3–14; 4:4–6). We are warned in the Bible neither to take away nor add to its words. On this basis it is best to leave out the disputed words.203

Footnotes:

198 I.e., in the footnotes.

199 Quoted in H. J. De Jonge, “Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,” ETL 56 (1980): 385.

200 Ibid., 386.

201 The text (now minuscule Gregory 61) had been copied from Codex Britannicus or Codex Montforianus (early sixteenth century).

202 See De Jonge, “Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,” 381–89.

203 Lengthy discussions of this textual issue are found in Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 154–65; Brown, Epistles of John, 775–87; Marshall, Epistles of John, 236–37, n. 19; Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles, 44–46; Strecker, Johannine Letters, 188–91; Westcott, Epistles of John, 202–9.

Johannine Comma

According to Daniel Wallace, “The Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215.” This means that if it was originally included in John’s Greek letter, it went missing from all subsequent Greek witnesses for more than 1,100 years. Its absence from the writings of early church fathers is likewise telling: Isaac Newton notes that if early defenders of the Trinity had known about this text, they would have used it in the many heated debates concerning this doctrine. However, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on the Comma Johanneum, since other passages of Scripture affirm the historical definition of the Trinity. 

Wettstein and Metzger argue that this clause originated as a gloss in a Latin manuscript. Such marginal notations can sometimes look like accidental omissions from the text, causing later copyists to “reinsert” the words into the main body. If anti-Trinitarian scribes omitted this phrase, it is unclear why they would have left other orthodox Trinitarian passages that are included in all extant witnesses today. No other rationale exists; had the lines originally appeared in John’s letter, someone might have subsequently removed them. (Miller, Jeffrey E. 2016. “Johannine Comma.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.)

It is a telling fact that such a great champion of the traditional text as Burgon never at any time sought to argue that there was any MS basis for the retention of these verses. (Cairns, Alan. 2002. In Dictionary of Theological Terms, 472. Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International.)

None of the Greek Fathers cite 1 John 5:7-8

The King James Version (KJV) includes 1 John 5:7-8, also known as the "Johannine Comma," which is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This passage likely appeared later, possibly in Latin translations, and thus wasn't cited by the early Church Fathers.

Key Points to Consider About the KJV:

1. Textual History:

The KJV's inclusion of the "Johannine Comma" stems from its reliance on later Greek manuscripts, particularly those used by Erasmus in compiling the Textus Receptus.

The absence of this passage in early Greek manuscripts indicates it was a later addition, not part of the original text penned by the apostle John.

2. Theological Implications:

The doctrine of the Trinity is well-established through other biblical passages and theological reasoning. The early Church Fathers relied on texts such as John 1:1 and John 10:30 to articulate the Trinity.

The "Johannine Comma," while supporting the Trinity, is not essential for its theological basis, given the robust scriptural evidence elsewhere.

3. Translation Context:

The KJV was produced in the early 17th century, using the best available manuscripts and textual knowledge of that time. Its translators aimed for accuracy and readability, but they did not have access to many of the earlier manuscripts discovered later.

4. Modern Scholarship:

Advances in textual criticism have led to the recognition that the KJV, while historically significant and beloved, contains certain textual variations and additions not present in the earliest manuscripts.

Modern translations, which incorporate a broader and earlier range of manuscript evidence, provide a more accurate reflection of the original New Testament texts.

Conclusion:

The KJV remains a valued and influential translation, known for its majestic language and historical importance. However, it reflects the textual limitations of its time. Understanding this context helps us appreciate the KJV's contribution to biblical scholarship while recognizing the benefits of modern translations in providing a more accurate text based on the earliest and most reliable manuscripts.

As far as internal considerations, there is no reason why it would have been omitted had it been original. The comma also seems tangential to the author’s point in context (5:6–8). Contemporary text-critical scholars and commentaries of all perspectives consider it secondary to the text of 1 John (compare Brown, Epistles, Appendix IV; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 647–49; for an alternative view, see Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7–8).

Bible Translations Bestsellers, October 2024

 Bible Translations Bestsellers, October 2024

Compiled and distributed by ECPA
List does not include Bible portions.

Rank	Title
1	English Standard Version
2	New International Version
3	King James Version
4	New Living Translation
5	New King James Version
6	Christian Standard Bible
7	Reina Valera
8	New American Standard Bible
9	New International Reader's Version
10	New Revised Standard Version

Begin the Journey of Becoming a More Faithful Interpreter

Begin the Journey of Becoming a More Faithful Interpreter

None of us can claim to be inerrant interpreters. No matter what academic degrees or experiences one has, every person stands before the Bible as a learner. Some are farther along on the journey, but that should not intimidate those who are just beginning the trip.

One way to begin the journey toward more faithful interpretation is to start small. By choosing one particular book of the Bible and spending focused time in it over a period of several weeks or months, one will begin to see the importance and benefit of careful Bible study. Make manageable goals on reading and studying the Bible. Possibly invite a friend or friends to make the sojourn alongside you. Bible study, like athletic training, is often furthered by the camaraderie and accountability of a group.

Rome was not built in a day, and a full-orbed knowledge of the Bible is not attainable through reading one book. I am reminded of a seminary student who told me that my semester-long Greek course was much more difficult than the course he could take at an extension center over five weekends. “Yes,” I replied. “That is because in my class you are actually learning the material.”

Sometimes, things are worth what you pay for them. To acquire a rich knowledge of Scripture, one must be willing to spend the time and energy in study. Indeed, with the psalmist, the modern student of Scripture will come to declare, “The law from your [the Lord’s] mouth is more precious to me than thousands of pieces of silver and gold” (Ps. 119:72). 

 

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. When you read the Bible, do you, either consciously or unconsciously, take into account the genre of the book you are reading?

2. With whom are you reading and discussing the Bible? How have you benefited from studying the Bible with others? If you are not studying the Bible in community, do you know of an existing small-group Bible study that you can join?

3. Can you think of an instance where additional historical or cultural background information aided you in understanding a biblical text?

4. Have you ever changed your view on what a text of the Bible means by studying the context more carefully? “A text without a context is a pretext.” Can you think of an example or illustration of this maxim?

5. What next step can you take on the journey to becoming a more faithful interpreter?

 

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Carson, D. A. New Testament Commentary Survey. 6th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Glynn, John. Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical and Theological Resources. 10th ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.

TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, TIMELINE OF

TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, TIMELINE OF A timeline showing a selection of significant translations of the Bible before 1800.

Background

The history of Bible translations begins before the time of Christ, with Jewish translations of the Old Testament into Greek in the Septuagint, and into Aramaic in the earliest Targums. As Christianity spread throughout the ancient world over the first few centuries AD, the Bible was translated into a variety of languages for use in church services. Some of these languages, such as Syriac and Latin, had established written traditions, while in others, such as Armenian, writing was introduced by missionaries.

Through much of history, it was rare for all books of the Bible to be copied in a single manuscript. More often, manuscripts contained single books or smaller collections of books, such as the Gospels, the letters of Paul, or the five books of Moses. Pre-modern biblical translations often followed the same pattern: Many translations included only a single book or a small collection of books, rather than an entire Testament or the whole Bible. However, some languages did receive translations of the entire Bible, either through a single translation effort or through translations of individual books that eventually added up to cover the whole canon.

In the Near East, Africa, and Eastern Europe a variety of languages continued to be used in the church throughout the Middle Ages, but in Western Europe, Latin became established as the language of the church. Thus, in medieval Western Europe, translations into local languages were produced for private use, not for public reading in churches. In this context, biblical material was often reworked into poetry or expanded works that included commentary, rather than being translated more or less literally. However, even in medieval Western Europe, some biblical translations (rather than reworkings of biblical material) were produced.

The Protestant Reformation prompted a great wave of translations in the 16th century, beginning with Martin Luther’s translation of the Greek New Testament into German. Many European languages received their first printed New Testaments or whole Bibles at this time; in some cases, these had been preceded by translations circulated only in manuscript form. In the 17th and 18th centuries, this wave of translation activity slowed. However, some translation continued, including a few translations into non-European languages. Also during this time, some of the 16th-century translations were revised and updated.

In 1804, the British and Foreign Bible Society was founded, and a new wave of Bible translation began, largely into non-European languages. This wave of translation continues to the present day.

Timeline

This timeline shows select biblical translations from the earliest days until 1800. Translations after 1800 are too numerous to include, even selectively. For information about Bible translations into English, including some published after 1800, see this article: Bible, English Versions of the.

This timeline focuses on translations that meet the following list of criteria:

  •      Translations that stay relatively close to the source text, rather than reworking biblical material into verse or adding substantial commentary.

  •      Translations that are intended to be read as an independent text, as opposed to word-by-word glosses to aid in understanding the text in another language.

  •      Translations that are circulated in multiple manuscripts or printed copies, as opposed to translations produced for a single individual’s library and not distributed further.

  •      Before 1500: translations that include at least one whole book of the Bible.

  •      After 1500: translations that include at least one whole Testament.

In addition, this timeline largely focuses on translations that are firsts in some way, such as a language’s first translation of any biblical book, first translation of the New Testament, first printed translation, etc.; however, some other significant translations are also included. This focus on firsts means that many translations from the 17th and 18th centuries are not listed, because the language in question had already received a published translation in the 16th century.

This timeline draws heavily on Kruyswijk and Barry, “Bible Timeline,” and Ellingworth, “From Martin Luther,” with additional data from other sources listed in the bibliography.

Early 200s BC

Greek

Septuagint

In Alexandria, Genesis—Deuteronomy are translated from Hebrew into Greek for the first time. The rest of the Hebrew Bible is translated later, likely prior to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

2nd century BC–5th century AD

Aramaic

Targums

Interpretive Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures are derived from oral worship in the synagogues of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Anatolia.

2nd century AD

Latin

Old Latin or Vetus Latina

Biblical books are translated from Greek into Latin. A variety of such translations of varying quality are made in the next few centuries.

2nd–4th centuries

Syriac

The Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are translated into Syriac, with portions based on the Septuagint. The Hebrew Scriptures are translated first, likely by Jewish translators. Multiple translations are produced over the next few centuries; the one used by Syriac churches becomes known as the Peshitta, meaning “simple” or “common.”

Late 3rd century

Coptic

The earliest Coptic translations of biblical books are made into the Sahidic dialect. In the 4th–5th century, translations become more standardized and widespread.

4th century

Latin

Vulgate

The scholar Jerome creates a uniform Latin translation using Hebrew, Greek, and existing Latin texts. This translation becomes standard for the Roman Catholic Church.

4th century

Gothic

Arian bishop Wulfila translates biblical books into Gothic from Greek, including most of the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament.

Early 5th century

Armenian

Mesrob Mashtotz and Sahak Parthev produce the first translation of the Bible into Armenian, based on Greek, Syriac, and perhaps Hebrew.

5th century

Georgian

The Bible is translated into Georgian, possibly by multiple translators working from different source languages.

5th century

Ethiopic

Most biblical books are first translated into Ethiopic.

Late 8th century

Arabic

The earliest known translations of biblical books into Arabic are made. In the 9th century, translations become widespread.

Late 9th century

Old Church Slavonic

Bishop Methodius and his colleagues translate the New Testament and most of the Old Testament, with Apocrypha, from Greek into Old Church Slavonic.

ca. 1000

Old English

West Saxon Gospels

The four Gospels are translated into the West Saxon dialect of Old English.

ca. 1000

Old English

Old English Hexateuch

The first six books of the Old Testament are translated into the West Saxon dialect of Old English.

mid-13th century

Old French

Old French Bible

The entire Bible is translated into French from the Latin Vulgate. This is the oldest known complete biblical translation into a vernacular language of medieval Western Europe. Some books have many added explanations, but most books stick close to the Latin text, with few additions.

14th century

Czech

The whole Bible is translated into Czech.

1350

German

Augsburg Bible

The first surviving complete version of the New Testament in German is translated from the Latin Vulgate.

1382

Middle English

Wycliffe Bible, first version

A Middle English translation is made by Wycliffe, his students, and followers. It is based on the Latin Vulgate. About 10 years later it is revised to use more natural English.

ca. 1415–1440

Hungarian

Hussite Bible

The Bible is translated into Hungarian by Tamás Pécsi and Bálint Újlaki. Only partial manuscripts survive.

1466

German

Mentelin Bible

Johannes Mentelin produces the first complete printed German Bible, using a slightly modernized version of a translation that seems to come from the early 14th century. It is translated from the Latin Vulgate.

1471

Italian

Malermi Bible

Niccolo Malermi publishes the first printed Italian Bible, including the Apocrypha. It is translated from the Latin Vulgate.

1475

Czech

The first printed Czech New Testament is produced by Hussites associated with the University of Prague.

1477

Dutch

The first complete Dutch translation of the Old Testament is printed by Jacob Jacobszoon and Maurice Iemandtszoon of Middelburgh in Delft. It is based on earlier partial translations and corrected to match the Latin Vulgate.

1478

Catalan

Jaime Borrell produces the first published translation of the Bible in Catalan. It is his revision of a translation produced earlier in the century by Bonifacio Ferrer.

1479

Low German

The whole Bible, with Apocrypha, is translated into a Nether-Rhenish dialect of Low German from the Latin Vulgate and printed in Cologne. It is widely used by speakers of the closely-related Dutch.

1488

Czech

The whole Bible is printed in Czech for the first time. It is produced by Hussites associated with the University of Prague, but is also used by Catholics.

1519

Latin

Roman Catholic priest and scholar Erasmus publishes a text of the Greek New Testament accompanied by his own new Latin translation. Both his Greek text and his Latin translation become important sources for 16th-century Bible translators.

1522

German

Luther New Testament

Martin Luther’s translation of the Greek New Testament into contemporary, idiomatic German is published; his Old Testament, translated from Hebrew and Aramaic, appears in portions until the middle of the next decade. The influence of Luther’s translation spreads to neighboring countries embracing the Reformation. Luther includes notes in his Bible against Roman Catholic teachings.

1523

French

Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples’ New Testament, based on Latin texts, is published.

1526

Dutch

The first complete Dutch Bible is printed by Jacob van Liesvelt. The New Testament is translated from Luther’s New Testament translation, and the Old Testament from the Latin Vulgate. The Apocrypha are included as a separate section.

1526

English

Tyndale’s New Testament

William Tyndale produces the first modern English New Testament, translated from the Greek. In 1530, Tyndale adds a translation of the Pentateuch based primarily on Hebrew. He is executed before he can complete the translation and publication of the Old Testament. Tyndale’s translation becomes a foundation for subsequent versions.

1526

Swedish

A Swedish New Testament is published, translated primarily from Erasmus’ Latin translation of the Greek New Testament.

1527

German

Anabaptists Ludwig Hatzer and Hans Denck publish a version of the Prophets from the Hebrew texts, since Luther’s translation of these books had not yet appeared.

1530

French

Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples’ complete translation of the Bible, based on Latin texts, is published. It becomes the basis for many later Catholic French translations of the Bible.

1534

German

Luther Bible

Martin Luther’s complete translation of the Bible from the original languages is published. It includes the Apocrypha as a separate section.

1535

English

Coverdale Bible

Coverdale combines and publishes Tyndale’s Pentateuch (Gen-Deut) and New Testament, filling in the rest of the Old Testament with his own translation of the Latin and Luther’s German Bible.

1537

English

Matthew Bible

John Rogers produces an edition of the Bible. He uses Tyndale’s translations where possible, including unpublished translations of Old Testament books. He fills in the rest of the Old Testament with Coverdale’s translation. The translation is pseudonymously attributed to Thomas Matthew.

1539

English

The Great Bible

Coverdale revises Matthew’s Bible. It becomes the first authorized English Bible. It is read aloud in Church of England services.

1540

French

Pierre Robert Olivétan’s French translation of the Bible is published after his death. It is the first French Protestant translation and the first French translation from Hebrew and Greek.

1541

Hungarian

János Erdösi produces the first printed Polish New Testament. It is translated from Greek.

1541

Icelandic

An Icelandic translation of the New Testament is published, based primarily on Luther’s version, but also influenced by the Vulgate and by Erasmus’ Latin translation of the Greek New Testament.

1541

Swedish

The first complete Swedish Bible is published and becomes standard. It relies heavily on Luther’s German Bible.

1543

Spanish

The first published Spanish New Testament is produced by Francisco de Enzinas.

1550

Danish

A complete Danish Bible is published, commissioned by King Christian III and translated by a committee. It is influenced by Luther’s Bible and by earlier Danish partial paraphrases of the Vulgate. It becomes the standard Bible translation in Denmark and Norway.

1553

Polish

Lutheran scholar Jan Seklucjan publishes a Polish translation of the New Testament.

1559

Spanish

Casiodoro de Reina’s translation of the Bible into Spanish is published. This is the first complete printed Spanish Bible, and includes the Apocrypha without separating them out into a separate section.

1560

English

The Geneva Bible

The first entire English Bible translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament, and Greek New Testament is created by English people living in John Calvin’s Geneva. Shakespeare and the great Elizabethan poets use this translation.

1563

Polish

Jan Seklucjan publishes the whole Bible in Polish.

1567

Welsh

William Salesby publishes his translation of the New Testament into Welsh.

1571

Basque

Jean Leicarraga’s translation of the New Testament is published.

1582

English

Bishops’ Bible

Bishops of the Church of England create a revision of the Great Bible.

1582

English

Douay-Rheims New Testament

Roman Catholic scholars produce an English translation of the Latin New Testament.

1584

Icelandic

The first complete Icelandic Bible is produced under the direction of Bishop Gudbrandur Thorláksson. It largely incorporates the 1540 Icelandic New Testament, and also relies on Luther’s translation and the Vulgate.

1584

Slovenian

The first complete Slovenian Bible is published in Wittenberg.

1588

Welsh

The first complete Welsh Bible is published. It includes the Apocrypha. William Morgan and associates translated mostly from Hebrew and Greek.

1588

French

The French Geneva Bible

A committee of pastors in Geneva produce a standardized revision of Pierre Robert Olivétan’s 1540 translation. It becomes the dominant French Protestant biblical translation until 1744.

1590

Hungarian

The whole Bible, translated mostly by Gáspár Károlyi, is printed in Polish for the first time. It becomes the standard Bible for Hungarian Protestants.

1602

Spanish

Reina-Valera version

Cipriano de Valera publishes a revision of de Reina’s Spanish Bible translation and places the Apocrypha in a separate section. The Reina-Valera version becomes the standard Protestant Spanish translation.

1609–1610

English

Douay-Rheims Old Testament

Roman Catholic scholars produce an English translation of the Latin Old Testament.

1602

Irish

Nicholas Walsh completes the first Irish New Testament.

1611

English

King James Version (KJV) or Authorized Version

King James I sponsors this version, first published as the “Authorized Version.” It is a revision of the Bishops’ Bible in light of the original languages and other major translations of the previous century. It becomes the first English Bible published without notes that condemn the Roman Catholic Church.

1632

Polish

A revision of Seklucjan’s Polish Bible translation is published and becomes the favored translation among Polish Protestants.

1642

Finnish

The first complete Finnish translation of the Bible is published.

1663

Wampanoag (Massachusetts)

Eliot Indian Bible

John Eliot’s translation of the whole Bible into Wampanoag, a Native American language, is published in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1668

Malay

The first complete New Testament is published in Malay. Portions had been published beginning in 1629.

1679

Romansch

The first complete Bible is published in Romansh, a language spoken in Switzerland.

1688

Romanian

The Bible from Bucharest

The first complete Romanian Bible is published. Both Testaments are translated from Greek by Spatharus (Nicolae) Milescu.

1689

Latvian

The first complete Latvian Bible is published, translated by Ernst Glück and C.B. Witten.

1690

Irish

The first complete Irish Bible is published.

1693

Portuguese

Almeida New Testament

The revised second edition of João Ferreira de Almeida’s New Testament is published in Batavia (now Jakarta, Indonesia). The first edition of 1681 was not widely circulated because of printing errors and most copies were destroyed.

1701

Lithuanian

The first complete Lithuanian New Testament is published. Gospels and epistles arranged for liturgical reading had been published as early as 1591.

1714–1728

Tamil

The first translation of the Bible into Tamil, a language of India, is produced in installments by Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg and Benjamin Schultze.

1715

Estonian

The New Testament is first published in Estonian. Gospels and epistles arranged for liturgical reading had already been published in the 1630s.

1735

Lithuanian

The entire Bible is first published in Lithuanian.

1739

Estonian

The entire Bible is first published in Estonian.

1719–1751

Portuguese

The entire Bible is published in Portuguese in installments.

1766

Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic)

Poul Egede publishes the first translation of the New Testament into Kalaalisut, an indigenous language of Greenland.

Klippenstein, Rachel. 2016. “Translations of the Bible, Timeline of.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Considering Ourselves: The Specifics

 Considering Ourselves: The Specifics

Paul exhorted the Roman Christians; “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11).

Some Bible teaching stresses Paul’s call in this passage to consider ourselves dead to sin. This view argues that Paul calls on the believer to reckon himself dead to sin each time temptation arises. Thus, it is argued, he will find deliverance because if you’re dead to something, you can’t continue in it. However, the argument becomes vague at this point. The bottom line is that the battle against sin consists mainly of trying to convince myself that I’m dead to sin, even though I still desire it.

I used to find this teaching quite confusing as a young Christian. If you’ve tried to deal with burning temptation by telling yourself “I’m dead to this,” you know what I mean. It doesn’t work all that well. In fact, it doesn’t work at all. I always got the feeling I was trying to think my way into something that wasn’t quite true in the first place. I sure didn’t feel very dead!

But the verse doesn’t teach that we are dead. We are obviously not dead. The real point of the verse is not just that we are dead to sin but that we are alive to God! So we are alive, not dead. We were alienated from God in Adam. Sin and death reigned over us. In Christ, we see ourselves not enslaved to sin, not alienated from God, but alive to God. We are treasured in his eyes. We are welcome into the deepest level of intimacy with him because we are in Christ.

Only when we begin to see ourselves this way and consistently approach God accordingly will we experience the power promised in this passage. Only then will we:

•Begin to escape the performance fixation that leaves so many believers defeated and broken in their own self-effort.

•Realize the freedom and power of a perspective that is truly Christ-centered.

•Gain regular, increasing freedom from our sin habits.

•Be delivered from love demanding, self-pity, and selfish ingratitude.

•Enter into a new level of praising and worshiping God.

How vital it is that we come to the place where, like Paul, we can say, “The life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God” (Galatians 2:20).