Early "Onlies?"

I have been studing the text/version debate for some time now. I regularly add books to my library that would benefit me in this study. I purchase books that agree with the position I hold and also those that disagree. My objective in this matter is to understand the issue so fully that I can explain it simply.

One of my most recent acquisitions is the book The Bible in Translation by Bruce M. Metzger. In this book, he makes the following statements concerning the early Christians:

I see striking similarities between the views of these first century Christians and those of the onlies today. Both believe(d) that their respective "translation" was/is divinely inspired. They even went so far as to feel that their "translation" was more accurate than the original language text. (Ruckman, Gipp, et al.)

Also, as the original language becomes more and more obsolete and unlearned, the more they held to their translations as the final authority.

The similarity here is obvious - these early Christians, it seems, would rather translate the Old Testament for Syriac-speaking Christians from their trusted translation rather than from the originals.

Metzger also reveals that the Old Testament translated into Latin was translated the same way.

I am not endorsing the positions presented here, nor did Metzger present them in this light. I simply found the comparisons interesting.

My question for discussion is this: Do these similarities indicate that a precedent has been set by the early Christians making it acceptable to elevate a translation/version to the position that they did in the first century and that Christians for the past few centuries have done?

 

According to Metzger, the Septuagint was translated primarliy for the Jews in Alexandria. He states, "Many members of this community had forgotten their Hebrew or let it grow rusty and spoke only the common Greek of the Mediterranean world. But they remained Jews and wanted to understand the ancient Scriptures..."

When a people loses the ability to read and/or understand the original language, it is very necessary to have a translation in their language so that they might still know the Scriptures. That is why it is so important to have a translation that is based on reliable texts and correctly represents the originals.

I do not agree with much of Metzger's conclusions, but you cannot deny that he is an expert in the field of ancient manuscript evidence and very educated in the history of Bible translations. I read him for his factual information on these topics rather than for his preference on texts and versions, both of which I cannot agree with.

[ April 07, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

This is the very premise of this thread. Do today's KJVOs have a precedent that was set in the first century?