Difference of Translations

In these past three weeks, we have debated the question of, what is a revised text? Well, I don’t think there is one solid definition for what a revised text is—because, I reason that the definition has to include its purpose in revising the text. The publishers that are reworking the Bible today seem to be doing it for money or because they think they have the authority to change what can be added or removed. Publishers, or scribes, in antiquity, did not have access to the printing press—therefore, it makes more sense to why there are different versions of the text in antiquity. Due to the lack of resources in antiquity, the scribes and modern day Bible publishers do not seem to have a similar purpose.  

On page 103, Beal talks about the different translations that a “House-church” community would have. The translations that Beal talks about are in different dialects or languages. Beal reveals that “by the late second century or so, moreover, some communities in the West were using Latin translations, and some in the East were reading Scriptures in Syriac, an eastern dialect of Aramaic” (103). He continues his argument by talking about the third century and so on. At the end of this paragraph, Beal questions, “Sounds a little like what some Bible publishers are doing today, doesn’t it?” (103). I would argue that it is not similar to what Bible publishers are doing today. I think that most Bible publishers—not all—are revising the Bible to continue to grow the industry and make more money by constantly publishing new versions. I highly doubt that the different translations of the languages that Beal presented are similar to what the “revised” process is going on today. Since there was no printing press in antiquity, it makes more sense to why there are different versions or translations from language to language or from scroll to scroll. Also, as Beal presents, the literacy rate was rarely above 20 percent—so, the lack of education could also explain the difference in translations.

The comparison between publishers today and scribes in antiquity is a theme I would like to continue exploring. My knowledge is not as profound as Timothy Beal’s is—but I still want to continue arguing that scribes in antiquity have different purposes than the Bible publishers in modern day.