Why so many Bible Translations: And why the differences?

The question about Bible translation is a rather large study. It is the debate between Traditional Text verses the Critical Text. There must be a preliminary understanding of these two different texts. The Traditional, or received, text is the text that is copied from the originals. Those who hold to the Traditional Text stand on the position that God's Word is known, preserved, and handed down to us through the halls of time. Those who believe in the Critical Text approach the Bible as a source to study and to "discover" God's Word. It is not 100% known, and there must be some "critical study" to try and discover the Word of God. This position props the propenents over the Bible as the judge for what is and is not the Bible.

There are many names that hold to both, but to just help us start is as such: Dr. Mark Ward, and Grant Osborn hold to the Critical text. Proponents of the Traditional Text would be Christian McShaffery (Text and Translation: https://www.textandtranslation.org/), and Dean Burgeon. The scholarship, from a Traditional Text camp is no less or weaker than the Critical Text, but are often passed over, ignored, and downplayed. Grant Osborn, in his work, "The Hermenutical Spiral" gives the evidence that Traditionalist argue with a Historial position stating that the early church father's, ancient writers or authors used ANY variant of the Critical text and would show the Critical Text DID NOT EXIST IN THE EARLY FIRST CENTURY. Sadly, Mr. Osborn goes on to just ignore that argument for what he calls a better argument. Sadly, the better argument is not and it is just him whistling in the wind to support his position.

On the other hand, writers like Dean Burgeon, in his work, "Revision Revised" makes a case of around 900 pages as to why the Wescott/Hort text is wrong and should be cast out. With his arguments, we can carry this forward to modern text using the now infamous, "Nestle-Aland Text" which comes from the Wescott/Hort family and therefore maintains almost 95% of the same issues Burgeon argued against!

To date, Burgeon has not been answered and his challenges left unmet. However, he himself stated, in his work, that many will attack his position, not with refuting his argument, but by attacking himself personally. True to form, Dr. Mark Ward, in a Youtube video "reviewing" Dean Burgeon's work, admits he did NOT read the whole book, but attacks Burgeon, not on the basis of his arguments, but on his tone in which it is presented! Dr Ward did exactly what Burgeon said would happen some two hundred years ago!

The reason for this is not because the Traditional Text camp does not have good arguments. It is because the Critical Text camp does not have a good defense. When the Critical Text is based on faulty manuscripts that exclude majority of the texts in existence, why use it? Further, if majority of the text we have in existence disagrees with the Critical Text, why use the Critical Text as if it is accurate? No Critical Text defender can answer this charge and has failed to do so in any meaningful way.

Why so many translations? I believe it was motivated by Satan. Satan could not beat the Word of God, and God, Himself, said His Word would forever stand (Psalms, Hebrews, Matthew, Luke, etc.). Satan, to cast more doubt on the true Word of God, Textual Criticism (which we should label as Textual doubtism) is a brilliant tool to dilute the real text.

It is true that Modern Textual Doubters cannot say they have THE WORD OF GOD (Young, Textless, Reformed:https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2021/04/08/modern-critical-text-advocates-cannot-say-anything-about-originality-or-authenticity/). Traditional Text believers stand on God's Word, which we hold in our hands, with absolute confidence and we build our life upon it! God preserved it for us, we stand on it, believe it, hold to it, and trust it. This blog is not the only one that makes that case. I will share a couple of links, but please note, I may or may not agree with ALL of their Theology (they are reformed and we are Brethren, non creedal, and non-calvanists) but their website is filled with a treasure trove of resources dealing with this topic and is spot on: (Young, Textless, Reformed: https://youngtextlessreformed.com/blog/).

So, why the differences? There are a few small answers to help with this. First, it depends on the Greek Text used. The Traditional vs the Critical Text would provide so many different variants because they use a different Greek Text. Second, is the translation philosophy. A Traditionalist holds to the Formal Equivalency translation. This takes each word, word for word, and translates it into the target language. Critical Text uses Dynamic Translation. This does not focus on the words, but focuses on the main ideas of a text. Third, and last, some will argue of variants within a family group. Dr. Mark Ward tries to argue against the Traditional Text by asking, "Which Text?" This is a good question but shallow when one takes the time to study out what he is really saying. We won't expand on that here, but this has been answered: (Young, Textless, Reformed: https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2019/09/27/a-response-to-brother-mark-ward/) and again here it goes deeper (Young, Textless, Reformed: https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2022/09/15/show-me-which-tr/).

All of this to say, the reason for so many translation is because Satan could not destroy God's Word so he dilutes it. Sadly, many Christians have taken hold of the Critical Text and have accepted it, causing many to doubt the Word of God in its base points. God's Word is settled in Heaven. Given to us on earth (Hebrews 1:1-2), and then protected and preserved through all of History, and it is one we can have in our hand.

If I am asked what Text I think reflects the Bible today, I will say I hold to a Traditional Text. Whatever translation that comes from that Greek text is God's Word. The main ones are found in the King James Version, the New King James Version, and several others (some good resources: Textus Receptus Bibles:https://textusreceptusbibles.com/; The Dean Burgon Society: https://www.deanburgonsociety.org/ . Please note, the Dean Burgon Society rejects all Bibles but the KJV, regardless it was a Traditional Text or not. However, their work on this debate is amazing. As a side note, even Dean Burgon was open to a new translation, just not in his day, as stated in the work, “Revision Revised”.).

I do wish to say that the NKJV also uses Critical Text notes in the footnotes or columns. That is not the main text itself. It gives the variant reading for us to see the differences between the two Greek text families. In closing, we do have God's Word. It was preserved for us and given to us to help us know what His expectations and calling is for all of us. The question is, are we willing to follow the true Bible, or one of the many alternatives?