Part One:
Bible Translation: Why, What, and How?
Donald W. Burdick
Volume XXI --  Number  1

March, 1975
pp. 1-16
(C)opyright 1975
All Rights Reserved
The Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary


    In 1520 when William Tyndale determined to translate the Scriptures into English, practically no one had access to an English Bible. One hundred and forty years before that time John Wycliffe had translated the Latin Vulgate into our language; but, since printing had not yet been invented, the Wycliffe Bible was only available in manuscript form. Moreover, by Tyndale's time it was illegal to sell, buy or possess a copy of the Bible in English. Consequently, only a few copies of the Wycliffe translation were in circulation and that, secretly. In reality, the Bible was not available to any except the few who could read Latin. It was this tragic situation that moved Tyndale on one occasion to announce to a learned churchman, "If God spare my lyfe ere many years, I wyl cause a boye that dryveth ye plough, shall knowe more of the scripture than thou doest."

    We can understand the need for a translation of the Bible in that day, but why in our day? After all, we have had the Bible in English for centuries - in fact, ever since Tyndale's New Testament appeared in 1525. And the King James Version, which has been in use since 1611, is not a translation of a translation as Wycliffe's version was. Instead it was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts. So our first question is, Why do we need new translations of the Bible today?

I. REASONS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS

    Basically the reason why new translations other than the King James Version are needed is that things have changed. That is not to say that the Bible or its message has changed. God's Word is the same across the centuries. But there have been changes in the English language, and there have been new manuscript discoveries, and there have been numerous advances in biblical scholarship. We will look briefly at each of these areas of change.

A. Changes in the English Language

    No living language is static. Languages in use are always changing. For example, the old distinction between "shall" and "will" is becoming a thing of the past. "It is I" is giving way to "It is me." Split infinitives and sentences ending in prepositions are becoming acceptable. And words themselves have changed. A number of words have grown obsolete; others have changed their meanings.

1. Obsolete words. Some words found in the KJV are no longer in use. In Luke 17:9 the word "trow" appears. "Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not." Webster says "trow" is archaic English for "think" or "suppose." Luke reports (2:40) that the child Jesus "grew and waxed strong in spirit." That is, he became strong in spirit. Then there is the word "wist" in Luke 2:49, "Wist ye not (know ye not) that I must be about my Father's business?" And who were the "publicans" who came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:12)? Were they something like Democrats? No, they were tax collectors. What is a shoe "latchet" (Luke 3:16)? When John spoke of the winnowing process, what did he mean by the prediction, "He will throughly purge his floor" (Luke 3:17)? Today, we would say "thoroughly." And we could add the pronouns thee, thou, thy and thine, as well as the words straitly, glistering, ravening, Holy Ghost, halt (lame), and on and on.

2. Obsolete expressions. Just as there are obsolete words, so there are also obsolete expressions. For example, Luke explains (1:7) that Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth were "well stricken in years." To twentieth-century ears such a saying is almost amusing. Luke (5:27) has Levi, a "publican," sitting at "the receipt of custom," which really means the tax office.

3. Altered meanings. Some words have continued in current English, but their meanings have radically changed. Jesus rebuked the demons and "suffered them not to speak" (Luke 4:41). In 1611 "to suffer" meant "to permit or allow"; today it means to be in misery. One of the most striking examples of change of meaning is seen in II Thessalonians 2:7, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let unto he be taken out of the way." Our word "let" means "to permit," but in King James' time the word meant exactly the opposite "to hinder." Another word that has undergone an interesting change is "prevent." I Thessalonians 4:15 assures us that "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." Does that mean that the living will not hold down Christians who have died when the Lord comes to catch them up to be with him? No, "prevent" once meant "to go before or precede."

    Of course, such obsolete terms and ways of speaking may be expected in a version like the KJV that is almost 400 years old. It may be surprising, however, that a recent version like the Revised Standard Version also has its outmoded words and expressions. For example, the word "whence" is not in current use. We don't say, "Whence have you come," but "Where did you come from." But the RSV uses "whence" in Luke 20:7. We no longer use the word "manifold" except to designate part of an automobile motor, but the RSV has it in Luke 18:30. Christ's loyal followers will "receive manifold more" now and in the future. In Luke 14:32 (RSV) an "embassy" is not the building where the ambassador lives, but the ambassador and his diplomatic staff. So even the RSV did not completely solve the problem of outmoded expressions.

    It is obvious, then, that changes in the English language require that new translations or at least revisions keep reasonable pace with linguistic development. We turn now to a second reason for new translations.

B. New Manuscript Discoveries

    Since 1611 a wealth of new manuscripts has come to light. Many of these more recently discovered manuscripts have proved to be among the most valuable of all that we possess.

1. Old Testament manuscripts.In the Old Testament area there are the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947. The Isaiah manuscript in this collection is known to be almost 1,000 years earlier than the oldest extant Isaiah manuscript prior to 1947.

2. New Testament manuscripts. Of primary importance in this area are the great uncial manuscripts (written in half-capital letters), none of which was used as a basis for the KJV. In fact the KJV was translated from the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus, which was for all practical purposes the text of Erasmus. According to Bruce Metzger(1), Erasmus' text rested on "a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts," the oldest and best of which came from the tenth century, and which, by the way, was the least used by Erasmus in composing his text.

    Let me briefly survey some of the great manuscript discoveries since the Textus Receptus. In 1627, too late for use in translating the KJV, the Alexandrinus manuscript was brought from Turkey to England. It is a fifth century manuscript.

    In 1809 the Vaticanus manuscript was first examined. It was not available for use until 1857. This is one of the most valuable of all New Testament manuscripts, coming from about A.D. 350.

    In 1834 the interesting manuscript known as Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus became available. It is a fifth century manuscript of the Bible which had been erased in the twelfth century so that the sermons of Ephraem could be copied on its pages. In the nineteenth century by use of certain chemicals the underlying Greek text of the New Testament was reasonably restored.

    In 1844 Constantin Tischendorf discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript in St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai. It is a fourth century manuscript, probably second in value only to the Vaticanus.

    Another area of valuable discovery has been that of biblical papyri. In 1931 Sir Chester Beatty acquired what are now called the Chester Beatty papyri. These significant copies of much of the New Testament come from the third century, some parts from around A.D. 225.

    The most important New Testament manuscript discovery in recent years has been the finding of the Bodmer papyri. These treasures are kept in a glass case in the basement of the Bodmer Library of World Literature at Cologny, a suburb of Geneva, Switzerland. Discovered in 1955-56, these papyri are a significant contribution to New Testament textual studies. The codex of the Gospel of John is the oldest sizable extant portion of the New Testament. It probably originated about A.D. 200.

    The point is that none of these uncial manuscripts or these papyri was used as a textual base for the translation of the KJV. Thus, not only because of the changing English language, but also because of these significant manuscript discoveries, it was imperative that new translations be produced.

    Here is an example of the kind of contribution made by the newer documents. The angels who heralded Christ's birth are recorded in the KJV as saying' "Peace on earth, good will toward men" (Luke 2:14). The New International Version has "on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests." This translation is based on the superior manuscripts that have come to light since 1611, namely the Sinaiticus, the Alexandrinus, the Vaticanus, the Bezae, and the Washington manuscripts. All modern versions give a similar rendering of the angelic declaration.

C. Advances in Biblical Scholarship

    A third justification for the translation of the newer versions is the significant advance in many areas of biblical scholarship. This is important because the translation process draws on practically every aspect of biblical study. Translation is not merely a matter of language. The translator must rely upon the archaeologist, the historian, the exegete, and the theologian in order to come to a thorough understanding of the text he is translating. A few examples of advances in New Testament scholarship will suffice.

1. Cities and buildings. Due to the work of the archaeologist, we better understand the nature of the cities and buildings of New Testament times. We know where the poo1~ of Bethesda and Siloam were located in Jerusalem, and we are familiar with something of their structure. The appearance of a synagogue is no longer merely a matter of the imagination since we have seen the remains of the second-century synagogues of Capernaum and Chorazin. We know what a rock-hewn tomb and its rolling-stone door were like. In Ephesus we have walked in the theater where the silversmiths carried on their riotous meeting, and across the street we have seen the marketplace where Austrian archaeologists found evidence of the silversmiths' shops.

2. Customs. Light has also been thrown on many biblical customs by the findings of archaeology. In 1968, for example, while builders were excavating for apartment buildings in Jerusalem, they found the skeleton of a man who had been crucified. The iron nail was still in the heel bones, and the calf bones had been broken. We now know the position of the victim as he hung on the cross.

    From an Oxyrhynchus papyrus we learn of the custom of committing a boy to the care of a trusted slave who conducted the boy to school and watched over his conduct until he became an adult. This was the paidagwgo/j to which Paul refers in Galatians 3:24. The KJV translates the word as "schoolmaster." However, rather than being the teacher, he was the person who took the boy to the teacher.

3. New Testament words. Furthermore, numerous Greek words have gained new meaning as a result of findings in the papyri and instructions. The Beatitudes as recorded by Luke contain the statement, "But woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation" (6:24). From many occurrences in the papyri we know that the word a)pe/xw means "to receive in full." The rich, then, have been paid in full; they have no more consolation coming.

    Mark 10:45 says that the Son of Man was to "give his life a ransom for many." Deissmann says, "When anybody heard the Greek word lu/tron, 'ransom,' in the first century, it was natural for him to think of the purchase-money for manumitting slaves."(2) The word brought to mind the practice in which a slave gave the price of his release to a pagan temple and the temple in turn paid the slave owner. The slave then became nominally the property of the pagan god, but in reality he was completely free.

4. Religious backgrounds. Finally, new vistas of understanding have been opened in the area of New Testament religious backgrounds. Much more could be said about the new knowledge concerning Gnosticism since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts in 1945. We now are in a much better position to understand the great heresy that threatened the early Christian church. And the discovery in 1947 of the Dead Sea Scrolls made available a wealth of material dealing with the Jewish religious background of the New Testament.

    This survey of changes in the English language, of manuscript discoveries, and of developments in New Testament research and study has only scratched the surface. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to remove any and all doubts concerning the necessity for new translations of the New Testament.

II. A CLASSIFICATION OF THE MODERN VERSIONS

    We move now to an attempt to characterize and classify a number of the newer translations. There are various methods of classification that may be used in an attempt to clarify the differences existing among the various versions. We will employ four types of classification.

A. Number of Translators Involved

    Under this heading our main concern is whether a translation was done by one person or by a committee. It is assumed that, other things being equal, a committee translation will be superior to a one-man translation, both in accuracy and in English style. A one-man translation will reveal the idiosyncrasies of interpretation and style that are characteristic of the person doing the translating. A committee tends to purge a translation of any such peculiarities, with the result that the final product is more generally acceptable.

    An examination of the history of the English Bible shows that the earliest versions were one-man translations. This was true of the works of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and Taverner. The first genuine committee translation was the Bishops' Bible in 1568. This was followed by the King James Version in 1611, the product of six groups totalling some 54 translators.

    Our main purpose at this point, however, is to classify the better known modern versions as to the number of translators employed.

1. Individual translations. It is not our intention to list all of the individual versions since 1900, but only those that are better known.

(1) The Weymouth version (1902) was entitled The New Testament in Modern Speech..
(2) Moffatt's version (1913) was called The New Testament -A New Translation. Both were British, and their translations were in free, idiomatic, current English style.
(3) Edgar Goodspeed's The New Testament - An American Translation (1923) was done in vigorous American idiom in contrast to the previous two.
(4) Helen Barrett Montgomery's CentenaryTranslation of the New Testament (1924) is unique in that it is the only one done by a woman. It marked the first hundred years of the American Baptist Publication Society.
(5) Charles B. Williams, a Southern Baptist, entitled his version The New Testament in the Language of the People (1937). One of its chief characteristics is the indication of tense distinctions in the Greek verbs.
(6) The Berkeley Version of the New Testament (1945) is the work of Gerrit Verkyl, a Presbyterian. In combination with the Old Testament, it is now called The Modern Language Bible (1959).
(7) J. B. Phillips, a Church of England vicar, first published his Letters to Young Churches in 1947. The complete New Testament (1958) is entitled The New Testament in Modern English.
(8) Ronald Knox's New Testament in English (1947) is both British and Roman Catholic. It displays a lively, vigorous style of English.
(9) William F. Beck, a Lutheran, calls his translation The New Testament in the Language of Today (1963). Its preface explains that it "is in the living language of today. It uses 'you' and 'don't' and '12 o'clock' and 'hurry' and 'worry.'"
(10) Today's English Version (1966), also called Good News for Modern Man, is the work of Dr. Robert G. Bratcher. It is a publication of the American Bible Society done in the simple, direct style of the average American.
(11) The Living Bible, a paraphrase by Kenneth Taylor, had sold 14,775,000 copies in two and one-half years from 1971 to 1973. It was America's No.1 Bestseller in 1973.
2. Committee translations. It is apparent that there are fewer translations done by committees, and this is to be expected when the difficulties of securing and coordinating a committee effort are considered.
(1) The American Standard Version (1901) is what could be called the Americanization of the English Revised Version of 1881. The ERV was the product of the cooperative efforts of a British and an American Committee. After its completion the American Committee proceeded to alter its text to bring it into line with American preference.
(2) The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published in 1946, six years before its Old Testament counterpart. As its name suggests, it was a revision of the ASV. The RSV committee consisted of thirty-two scholars from more than twenty seminaries and universities.
(3) The New English Bible (1961) was "a genuinely new translation," rather than a revision. It was the work of four panels of British scholars under the direction of C. H. Dodd. The first printing of the New Testament consisted of one million copies, and reprinting was necessary almost immediately.
(4) The New American Standard Bible New Testament (1963) is a revision of the ASV of 1901. It was the work of an editorial board of Greek scholars and pastors under the sponsorship of the Lockman Foundation.
(5) The English edition of The Jerusalem Bible (1966) is the English equivalent of a French Catholic translation first published in 1956 and known as La Bible de Jerusalem.
(6) The New American Bible (1970) is the work of some fifty members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Like the Jerusalem Bible, it was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek languages.
(7) The New International Version (1973) is the work of over one hundred scholars. This is the largest numbet of translators, editors and stylists ever to work on any version of the English Bible. It is a completely new translation, not a revision in any sense. In its first year of circulation over one million copies have been printed. Under the continued sponsorship of the New York Bible Society, the old Testament translation is being pushed toward completion in 1978 or 1979.
B. Method of Translation Employed

    The most meaningful classification of translations, however, is that which is based on the methods employed by the translators. In general there are three principal methods: (1) the concordant method, (2) the free paraphrase, and (3) the method of closest equivalence.

1. The concordant method. This type of translation is sometimes called literal or word-for-word. In its most extreme form it is based on the idea that each Hebrew or Greek word must always be rendered by the same English word and that the grammatical construction of the original should be followed as closely as possible in the translation. Of course, there are varying degrees in which the versions classified as literal apply the principle of concordance. Some are extremely concordant; other only mildly so.

    Probably the most extreme word-for-word English translations are those by Robert Young (author of the Analytical Concordance of the Bible) and J. B. Rotherham. Young's Literal Version was first published in Edinburgh in 1862. It claims on its title page to be translated "according to the letter and idiom of the original languages." Its literal, word-for-word character is seen in the following example from Luke 11: 39-40.

And the Lord said unto him, "Now do ye, the Pharisees, the outside of the cup and of the plate make clean, but your inward part is full of rapine and wickedness; unthinking did not He who made the outside also the inside make?"
    Rotherham's Emphasized New Testament appeared in 1872. It is even more woodenly literal than Young's translation, as the following example from Luke 12:1 will show.
Amongst which things, when the ten thousands of the multitude were gathered together so that they were treading one upon another he began to be saying unto his disciples first, Be keeping yourselves free from the leaven of the Pharisees, the which is hypocrisy."
    Two other translations may be classified as mildly concordant. The first is the American Standard Version of 1901. Fairness demands that we make it clear that there is a wide difference between the ASV and Young or Rotherham. However, something of the same basic concept underlies all three of these versions. Charles H. Spurgeon is often quoted as saying that the English Revised Version was strong in Greek but weak in English. By this he meant that it represented the Greek idiom rather than the English idiom in some places. And it must be remembered that the ERV was the parent of the ASV.

    The same thing may be said of the New American Standard Bible. Its revision of the ASV did not change its literalistic character. Writing in Christianity Today, Robert G. Bratcher complained, "Not unlike the ASV, NASB is so painfully literal in places as to read more like a 'pony' than a translation."(3) He adds that its language is not contemporary nor its English idiomatic. Several examples will reveal this to be true. In Luke 20:2, where religious leaders were confronting Jesus, the NASB translates the Greek very literally, "And they spoke, saying to him." This represents the Hebrew and Aramaic idiom very accurately, but not our English idiom. We would say, "And they said to him." Another example is the excessive use of conjunctions at the beginnings of sentences, which is excellent Greek but poor English. (There are 12 occurrences of "and" in Luke 19:1-9.)

2. The free paraphrase method. Eugene Nida(4) refers to this method as the translation of ideas. The translator restates the "gist" of the text in his own words. This procedure will naturally result in very readable, idiomatic English if the translator is a capable person, but the further it moves from the wording of the original text the more danger there is of misinterpretation and inaccuracy.

    The most obvious example of this kind of translation is the Living Bible. Its remarkable popularity is to be explained by the freedom allowed by the paraphrase method and by Kenneth Taylor's knack for restating biblical content in a fresh, striking manner.

    Less paraphrastic, but still fitting into the general category, is J. B. Phillips' New Testament in Modern English. Phillips himself insists in his "Translator's Foreword" that his work is a translation; and it is, if we use the term in a broad sense. However, in the same foreword he also says,

…As I see it, the translator's function is to understand as fully and as deeply as possible what the New Testament writers had to say and then, after a process of what might be called reflective digestion, to write it down in the language of the people today.
    This is an accurate description of what Nida refers to as a translation of ideas. For this reason we would classify the Phillips version as a paraphrase, although it must in all honesty be granted that it is only mildly paraphrastic.

3. The equivalence method. Nida says,(5)

    A translation based upon the closest equivalents in the two languages represents a middle ground between two extremes: (1) literal translation and (2) translation of ideas. The principle of closest equivalence is designed to avoid awkward literalness on the one hand and unjustified interpretations on the other.

    There is, however, disagreement as to what constitutes equivalence, for the principle of equivalence has been applied with greater and lesser degrees of freedom by translators. Thus, on a comparative spectrum of translations, some stand nearer to the concordant category and others nearer to the classification of free paraphrase. William L. Wonderly in his Bible Translations for Popular Use argues for a "dynamic equivalence."(6) His description of this method of translation places it nearer to the paraphrase end of the spectrum than to the word-for-word end. He also tells us that Today's English Version was translated according to the dynamic equivalence principle.(7)

    It would likewise be safe to say that the New English Bible and Beck's New Testament in the Language of Today belong in the same category. This classification is based on statements in the introductions to these two versions as well as on an analysis of their texts. The NEB introduction, for example, clearly states that the translation is free rather than literal.

    Between the concordant or word-for-word method on the one hand and the dynamic equivalence method on the other, there is an area that combines something of both concordance and equivalence. This method attempts to follow the original Greek or Hebrew text in somewhat of a word-for-word fashion as long as this results in good idiomatic English. However, it does not hesitate to depart from the word-for-word method when necessary in order to translate in normal, understandable English. The result is a method that employs idiomatic equivalence when necessary and word-for-word translation when possible. There is no slavish attempt to reproduce tile words and grammatical structure of the original language, but at the same time the original words and grammar are treated as significantly definitive.

    In this combination category we would place at least three of the currently popular translations: the RSV, Williams' New Testament in the Language of the People, and The New International Version. Of these, the RSV probably stands closest to the concordant or word-for-word category. The Williams translation is a little less literal in many ways. However, in its attempt to render the exact shades of meaning in the Greek tenses, it may be viewed as more literal than the RSV. The NIV is freer than either of these translations, but it is by no means in the category of the NEB, Beck, and the TEV. It is still somewhat under the influence of the word-for-word approach. This middle ground position is one of its strengths. Its accuracy is guaranteed by close attention to the words and grammar of the original, and its readability is guaranteed by its freedom to employ current English equivalent idiom.

C. Chronology of Language Employed

    A third method of classification is based on the time period to which the language of a translation belongs. Following the divisions suggested by Wonderly,(8) we may classify various versions as archaic, semi-archaic, or contemporary. A survey of the accompanying diagram will indicate the relative positions of the various translations.



            ARCHAIC             ½       SEMI-ARCHAIC          ½ CONTEMPORARY

         KJV     ASV      NASB        RSV                             Weymouth            TEV
                                                                                          Williams                Beck
                                                                                    Moffatt                        Phillips (Br.)
                                                                                    Goodspeed                  NIV
                                                                         Berkeley               Living Bible
                                                                                                Jerusalem         NEB (Br.)
                                                                                                      Bible

Table A: Chronology of Language Employed



 D. Theological Orientation of Translators

    Classification by the theological orientation of the translators is somewhat difficult in some cases. Translation committees have often been composed of men with a wide variety of theological views. Our classification will be a simple one, merely dividing the translations into two groups: liberal and conservative. In the case of committee efforts, we have placed a translation in the liberal category if a number of its translators were of a liberal persuasion. The accompanying diagram represents an attempt at theological classification.
 

LIBERAL
LIBERAL MIXED
MIXED CONSERVATIVE
CONSERVATIVE
Moffatt 
RSV
ASV
NASB
Goodspeed 
NEB
KJV
NIV
Jerusalem Bible 
 
Weymouth
Living Bible 
 
 
 
Berkeley 
 
 
 
TEV 
 
 
 
Williams 
 
 
 
Montgomery
 
 
 
Beck
 
 
 
Phillips (?) 
Table B: Theological Orientation of Translators
 

III. AN EXAMPLE OF TRANSLATION PROCEDURE
    We come now to the question of how Bible translation is done. To be sure, there have been various patterns of procedure followed by different translators and different committees. It is our purpose here to give a brief description of the method used on one project, the New International Version.

    Since 1967 when work on the translation began, over one hundred scholars have worked on the Old and New Testaments. They have served in various capacities as translators, consultants, editorial committee members, stylists, and reviewers. The project is governed by a committee of fifteen known as the Committee on Bible Translation. Dr. Edwin H. Palmer, the full-time Executive Secretary, coordinates the work of translating and editing.

    The translation of a given book of the New Testament began with a team of two scholars, who worked together to produce a tentative rendering of the book. This was sent to one or two consultants who made suggestions to the team for improvement of their translation. These suggestions were weighed and either accepted or rejected by the team.

    The team translation was then thoroughly reworked by an Intermediate Editorial Committee (IEC), usually made up of translators from other teams. In this step the team's translation was carefully reviewed and reworked verse by verse. Each suggested change was voted on by the IEC.

    The IEC translation was then reviewed by a General Editorial Committee (GEC). Again it was studied and revised verse-by-verse. The GEC included an English stylist who was a voting member of the group.

    During the second and third phases of editorial work, copies of the IEC and GEC translations were sent to numerous pastors, scholars, English stylists, and lay people for criticisms and suggestions.

    Finally, the twice-edited translation was thoroughly reviewed and edited for a third time by the governing Committee on Bible Translation. At long last it was ready for inclusion in the New International Version of the New Testament.

    The advantage of the repeated review and editing of the translation is obvious. The work is not the product of one or two men revealing their personal biases or idiosyncrasies. Nor is it the work of one denominational group reflecting one particular theological viewpoint. It is a representative translation that is truly ecumenical within a conservative framework. If two minds are better than one, then many minds working in an organized, concerted effort are many times better than one. This is one of the significant strengths of the New International Version.

    In summary, the NIV is distinctive among the many modern versions now flooding the market, and this distinctiveness lies in a combination of features.

(1) It is the work of over 100 scholars.
(2) It is a faithful rendering of the Greek text.
(3) It is done in currently idiomatic English that all can understand.
(4) It is neither woodenly literal nor loosely paraphrastic.
(5) Its translators all hold to the inerrancy of Scripture.
(6) It is marked by an easy dignity that well becomes the lofty character of the Word of God.

 FOOTNOTES
1. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p.102.
2. Gustav Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), p.327.
3. Robert G. Bratcher, "Old Wine in New Bottles," Christianity Today, XVI (October 8, 1971), p.17.
4. Eugene Nida, Bible Translating (London: United Bible Societies, 1947; revised editlon, 1961), p.12.
5. Ibid.
6. William L. Wonderly, Bible Translations for Popular Use (London: United Bible Societies, 1968), pp. 50ff.
7. Ibid., p.68.
8. Ibid., pp.17-19.

Typed: RSM