Course: Biblical Hermeneutics

Lecture: Hermeneutical Issues

---

HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES

II. Hermeneutical  Issues Involved in Translation

A. There is no on-to-one correspondence between languages

We want  to talk about  the philosophy of Bible translation.  C. H. Dodd made the statement – he was involved in the RSV -, “The first axiom the art of translation is that there is no such thing as an exact  equivalence of  meaning between words  in different languages.” Languages are a part of culture and no two cultures are the same, so we have a problem. For instance,  the word “spirit” in English has a number of possibilities. The norms of language for that word can have a variety of understandings. You can talk about a ghost, you can talk about the Holy Spirit, you can talk about  the soul, or something like that, you can talk about alcoholic spirits and the like. In German there is a word, “geist” and there is an overlapping of these, but they are not identical.  You can’t talk about  an alcoholic “geist.” In Greek you have the word, “duma,” talking about the spirit of man, talking about  the Holy Spirit, but you can’t talk about alcoholic  “duma.” So, what you have is the realization that  there is overlapping of  words, but identical synonyms  and all of the possibilities you  just can’t find. So when you go from one language to another, you have a problem. 

Let me give you an example of that. In 1975 my family and I went to Germany and we spent our sabbatical in Heidelberg.  My oldest two children, Julie and Keith, attended   Bundson Gymnasium that year.  How do you translate that in English?  They spent the year at the  Bundson Gym, played basketball and soccer and all those things.  Gymnasium is the name of the school , it was an academic thing.  What grade were they in? They were in fifth and sixth grade.  Then why do you say they went to Bundson Junior High? A little problem.  This junior high, so to speak, went from fifth grade to 13th grade. Why don’t you just say, they went to high school? Well, there is another  problem. That is, when a student in Germany graduates from fourth grade, grades one to four are “grundschule,” foundation school. They all go there. But after that, they go to one of three kinds of schools. They go to “fachschule,”  beginning in fifth grade, where they learn a trade, electrician, carpentry, things of that nature. They can go to “middleschule,” where they learn how to be in business and economics, or they can go to “gymnasium,” in which you study only for the university.  There is another problem here. There were three gymnasiums in Heidelberg.  There was a science gymnasium with majors in biology, science, chemistry, physics, math. There was another one which was a modern language gymnasium and there was a classical language gymnasium. They went to the modern language gymnasium.

Now, do you understand where my children went?  There is no English equivalent. What do you do to simply translate that? You put, “They went to Bundson Gymnasium with a footnote with a large paragraph explaining it:  gymnasiums are schools in Germany where after fifth grade students go to prepare for university, goes from grades five to 13. Or, you try to find an equivalent .  That’s the problem.

A Biblical problem like that is found in Matthew, chapter 1, beginning at verse 18. In 1:18 we read, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way, when his mother  Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. And her husband  Joseph,being a just man and not willing to put her shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream  saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, you will call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what was written by the prophet: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and his name shall be called  “Immanuel” which  means, “God with us.” When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife, but knew her not until she had bourn a son. And he called his name Jesus.”

What is the relationship of Joseph and Mary? In verse 18 they are betrothed.  Verse 19, Joseph is the husband thinking of divorcing her. Verse 20, Mary is his wife. And in verse 24, Mary is again referred to as his wife. Now, are they engaged? Are they married? What is going on here? And the answer is, “Yes.” There is no English word . Joseph and Mary in the culture of that day had entered into a legally binding engagement  in which they were considered  husband and wife, although the sexual consummation had not yet taken place.  To break that engagement, you had to divorce her. So you can’t say they are engaged, simply using English words, because engagement  for a lot of American young people think of  is kind of like going steady. It is not going steady, it is a legally binding situation in which you can only break  through divorce.  And if she has a sexual relationship with someone else, this is adultery.  So it is a different culture, a different relation. How do you translate that? A problem.  How do you translate  to Eskimos in Northern Canada  that  he is like a sheep  led to the slaughter?  There aren’t sheep up there.  What do you say? He was led like a four-footed animal  whose skin people peel  to make clothing? Do you say, “He is led like a seal pup to the slaughter? “ How do you convey to a different culture  something that is different in your culture?  And the Bible has problems that way.

Do you see the difficulty? Some people get so exasperated  and say, “They will never  understand.” That is not true. That is to over-exaggerate the problem. You can explain and people can understand. You understand what kind of school my son Keith and my daughter Julie went to. You understand the relationship of Joseph and Mary. The problem  is when you try to translate this, there are often not  good English equivalent words that you can use. So this is the major problem.

B. A good translation should:

1. be based on the best manuscripts

If you are going to have a translation, what are the qualities that we want to find in such a translation? The first thing to note is that  a translation can never  be better than the text  they use. So what  you want to do is to base your translation on the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are available. When  Tyndale translated the New Testament he used for his Greek text a printed edition by a man named Erasmus. Erasmus was a leading Renaissance scholar, a brilliant man. A publisher came to Erasmus and said to him, “They are producing a Greek translation in Spain,  a polyglot of various translations of various languages. And the publisher said to Erasmus, “I think there is a big market  for a Greek printed text. Can you produce one and beat the Spanish product?” And so Erasmus worked on it, he went  in 1516 to the library in Basel and he had four Greek manuscripts that he found, dating from the 12th to the 14th century. He used those four Greek manuscripts to produce this Greek text, which later became so popular, it was called “the textus receptus,” the text everybody receives and uses.  Some interesting things. None of those four Greek manuscripts had the last six verses of the Book of Revelation . So what he did was get a Latin vulgate and translated  the Latin into Greek for those last verses. Needless to say,  he has the translation that in part is not found in any Greek manuscript  of the Book of Revelation  that has ever been seen before.

Since that time, we have come across some 5,500 additional Greek manuscripts in part or in whole.  Since that time we have come across fragments and whole manuscripts that are up to 1,000 years older than the one used in Erasmus’s Greek text. That Greek text was the one Tyndale used and the revision of that was the one the King James version translators used.

Since the King James version has come out, what we have now are thousands of additional manuscripts, some of which are much, much older.  What should we do with these additional manuscripts? Should  we just say, “Get rid of them, they just cause problems.” There is a sense that ignorance is bliss, right? If we only had four, it would be a lot easier. Now you have 5,000 of in the deal, it is much more difficult.

Most of the New Testament translations today are based on the best of these Greek manuscripts. One of them is the Codec Vaticanus named because it  was found in the Vatican  library. The other one is a Codec Sinaiticus. Generally those are the two best old manuscripts that we have that are somewhat complete. Those two are at least 800 years older than the best manuscript  that Erasmus had available for the Textus Receptus. If you are going to now make use of these older Greek manuscripts,  it is going to be clear that some times you will see changes in them ,  different than in the manuscripts that were available and became part of the work of Erasmus.

Most, as I say, modern translations make use of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.  The glaring examples of the contrary is the New King James version.  That does not. It refuses to accept these older Greek manuscripts and  leaves what the King James has as a result.

If you have a Bible, I want you to turn with me to 1John chapter 5 verse 7. Like the King James version , this new King James version reads this way: Verse 6 is as follows: This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ. Not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness because the Spirit is truth.” Verse 7 in the King James version: “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.” If you have the New American Standard,  verse 7, does it have that,  “there are three that bear witness”?  It does not have it. Is there a footnote or something like that?  The New International version, 5:7, doesn’t  have that, right? Other translations? The English Standard, it doesn’t.  What do we do with this?

Let me say that when the King James version was translated, the Greek text of Erasmus had those words in the Greek text. Let me tell you a little about that particular verse as it is now found, verse 7. Of all the Greek manuscripts in the world, there are only four that have that expression in 1 John about the three that bear witness, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. One is a 12th century manuscript and it is written in the margin in a modern hand,. Other than the 12th century, after the 12th century, it is not in the text itself, it is on the side of the text and in a later hand. We know that from styles and so fourth. There is an 11th century manuscript which has it, but again, it is not in the text, it is in the margin, written in a hand similar to 17th century. There is a 14th and 15th century manuscript  and there again, it is not in the text, it is in the margin, written in a 17th century hand.  Erasmus was not going to include this in his Greek text because it was not in any of the manuscripts that he was using. He said to somebody, “If you could show me  one Greek manuscript  that has it in, I will include it. “ There is a Greek manuscript , it dates from, listen carefully, the 16th century,  and it has it in, the only one that has it in the text. And most scholars are convinced that it was written just for Erasmus, to make sure he would put it in.

Now, what do you do if you are responsible for a translation of the Word of God, do you leave it in like the King James has? Or do you not have it in? You say, there is a warning in  Revelation about anybody who takes out of the Bible these verses, but read that warning. It also says about adding into it. Are we taking something out  that is there, or are we not allowing anybody to add something that was not there?  All the other manuscripts  on that passage that are earlier, do not have anything, not even in the margin. But what is really interesting is that in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries, the church debated the issue of the nature of God and they hammered out  the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed comes out of Nicaea.  They wrestled with the nature of God. Isn’t it interesting that  never  once, all of those who argued for the Trinity quoted this verse. Wouldn’t you think, if you were trying to prove the Trinity and this was in your Bible, you would quote it? They never found it. It was not in their Bible. It came into the Bible later, centuries after those conferences.

So, do we allow it in or put it in? Or do we say, “No, no-one can add to the Word of God and we are not going to allow this to be added to it.” I assume it is the latter.  When the new King James version came out, I was teaching at  Bethel Theological Seminary and one of the editors  came out and gave everybody, the faculty and students, a copy of this after chapel  address and then there was a time for questions. And he said, “Are there  any questions?” My colleague in New Testament , Berkeley Michelson had his hand up and he said, “Yes, why did you include 1 John 5:7?” The editor said,  “The editorial staff really felt that we should not include it, but the publisher said that if we don’t include it, the translation won’t sell,” which is a “noble reason” [sarcasm] for adding something to the Bible.  In other translations , this is not a major problem.  This is one. Same thing when you get to the issue of the woman taken in adultery,  John 7:53 to 8:11. If you look at that, most translations will either  put it in the footnote or they will put brackets  around it and they will say,  “The earliest Greek manuscripts  that we have don’t have this.” John 16:9-20, same thing. Most translations will eliminate that or put it in brackets and say, “Some manuscripts add this,” etc.

So what we are dealing here with is the issue of textual criticism, and the average lay person really does not know enough about textual criticism . The average pastor doesn’t know much about textual  criticism.  The average New Testament scholar like me, I don’t know much about textual criticism.  So it is an area where  we feel uneasy and you have some dogmatic people who have a direct line to the Lord, making pontifical statements about this, which really does not show any humility at all. When you don’t know enough about something and you are dogmatic about it, it tends to be arrogant . Whenever you preach, you have to exegete where your congregation is,  where do theylive?  Some churches, this would not be a big issue if you said the early Greek manuscripts  don’t have it, it seems to be a later  edition.  Okay, what  do you mean?  What are you taking out of my Bible?  If you have the latter congregation, let’s just say, it takes a lot more explaining to deal with that.

Fortunately, none of these begin a book of the Bible. So, by the time you get to Mark 16, you’ve been with the congregation long enough that they have either a trust for you or suspicion. If they have suspicion, you can’t help that. But they develop a trust if they see you have a real love for the Lord, you have a great reverence for the Word of God, and you are not going to allow anybody to add something  to it. Then they might say, “I’m not really sure,  I don’t quite agree with him, but he loves the Lord and he wouldn’t say something like this if he didn’t believe it.” Or, if you are dealing with John, you have seven chapters to prepare your congregation for that.

Somebody says to me, “I’m only going to read the King James version, I don’t care what you say.” I would say, “Why don’t you get a New King James version. Some of the words we don’t  use anymore  are explained a little better there..” And they would feel more comfortable with it. And I would say, “Fine.” If a person won’t read a different translation , whatever  one they will read, unless it’s a Jehovah’s Witness kind of thing, I’ll get it for them and say, “You read this.” What we want is the use of the best Greek and Hebrew texts available.

Since the discoveries at Qumran, we have discovered Hebrew manuscripts  that are 1500 years,  1300 years older than the oldest manuscript that was available at the time. The oldest was something like 900 A.D., 11 manuscripts of the prophets.  They only go back to 300, 400 B.C. some of them. Wouldn’t it be absurd not to use manuscripts  that much closer to the original?  It is not quite as mechanical as this, but simply this way. Here we are today, 2002, and here we have the Biblical author , say the prophet Isaiah at 600 B.C. Would you like to base your manuscript  evidence  on manuscripts that date from 1600 or 300 B.C. All things being equal, isn’t the tendency down here for more  spelling errors to creep in than up there?  It is not quite that simple, but it is still relevant  to see in this way. With Greek manuscripts, there are a number of issues. For instance, if you have Mark, the original  Mark. Here you have a copy that dates 600. Here you have a copy dating 1200. This one is based on a 500 copy. This one is based on a 300 copy. So this is essentially 600 years later, but its predecessor  is earlier. So you talk about  families and traditions and the like. It gets to be a whole art at which I’m not really much of an expert.  Generally I think you would say, the older they would be, the more that they would tend to be less effected by changes and errors that have occurred. The older they are, the more opportunity for that.

2. be based on the latest knowledge of  language and culture

Second issue: We want the translation to be based on the latest knowledge of the languages and culture. Since 1611, the date of King James, there has been considerable knowledge that has increased with regard to various translations. We know, for instance, that  a lot of the Bible  consists of poetry and we can recognize that poetry.  Up to the 1700s, no-one knew Biblical poetry. They didn’t understand  or talk about poetry and how we interpret  poetry different than other works. But we have learned a lot since that time. We want to be careful about  what we have learned during that time and apply all of that knowledge t o our particular  text.  We want  a translation that is accurate and we can say, “Of course that is true.” Sometimes people take liberties in translation, like the Living Bible. In John 21:2 they translated, “A group of us were there, Simon Peter, Thomas the twin, Nathaniel from Cana and Gallilee, my brother  James and I and two other disciples.” The Greek text doesn’t say “James and I.” It says, “The sons of Zebedee.”  The translator  of the Living Bible thought, and he may be right, that John was the writer of this Gospel. But even if he is right, that is not what the text is saying, it says “the sons of Zebedee.”  So you should put in “the sons of Zebedee.” You want  an accurate translation .

3. be accurate

You have to realize too that just producing an accurate translation in manuscript form does not mean that it comes out accurate in printed form. There are some notorious goofs this way. For instance, in 1631 Barker and Lewis who were printers,  printed the King James version. It was a nice translation, a nice copy of the King James version. A little problem: In the  seventh commandment they left out a word, and so it read, “Thou shalt commit adultery.” They were taken to court, fined, went out of business. In 1653, Paul asked the question, “Know ye not that” and they had a little word change, “the unrighteous shall enter the kingdom of God,” rather than “righteous.” In 1716 in Ireland, 8,000 copies of a Bible were printed  and they discovered  no word was left out, nor incorrect word, no letters added, just  two letters were reversed.  So in the story of the woman taken in adultery, Jesus says to her, “Sin on more” instead of “Sin no more.” You have the famous printers’ Bible where David in Psalm 119 complains , “Princes have persecuted me without  a cause” and it came out, “Printers have persecuted me without  a cause.” In 1682 in Deuteronomy 24:3 it talks about  if the latter husband hate his wife and the “h” dropped out. If the latter husband “ate” his wife… In 1795, Mark 7:27:  “Let the children first be killed” instead of “filled”… You can have all sorts of interesting problems.  Before the New American Standard came into our pew Bibles at the seminary, we had a King James pew Bible. Some guy,  I don’t remember which pastor,  preached on 1 Timothy 6, and a lot of people used the pew Bible and they did not realize that it read a little differently. Instead of reading, “There is great gain in godliness with contentment.” Everybody who had the pew Bible had  “There is great pain in godliness with contentment.” He was preaching on that verse and there were chuckles going on, and I felt so sorry for the guy. You had to laugh. Here was a Bible that said a very negative thing about godliness and he was preaching on it. On the other hand, you can be very accurate and not have a very readable Bible.  For instance, I think the New American Standard Bible is probably the most useful Bible for verse-by-verse reading and analysis in English. But it is a miserable Bible to try to read large sections. It has accuracy, but very, very awkward reading.  In the American  Standard Bible, 2 Cor 10:13 is very awkward,  whatever  it might mean.  You want a translation that is understandable. 

4. be understandable

Understandable sometimes does not mean  accurate. If you look at the Living Bible, it is always understandable.  Even  when the Biblical writer is not clear,  the Living Bible will be clear.  There is no question about it. And it will always be orthodox, so that makes people very happy in many ways. But you sometimes have a compromise here of whether you sacrifice understandability for  accuracy or vice versa. It should  be contemporary.

5. be contemporary

There are a lot of changes happening in the English language since the King James version. The King James has all sorts of words that don’t mean the same or we don’t know what in the world they mean anymore.  For instance,  in the King James we come to 1 Corinthians 13: “The greatest of these is charity.” Now most people who read English today do not think that that word means love.  It is a synonym for it. They think of alms for the poor or something like that. Charity has a different connotation 400 years or so after the King James version. How many of you know what a besom is in Isaiah 14:23 is. They did in King James’ day. It is a broom. I don’t have any problem with that. In Nehemiah 13:26 it refers to an outlandish woman. What they mean is a foreigner. We don’t use the word “outlandish” in that way.  In Acts 13:34, respecting persons  is very positive in some ways,  or it can be negative, it is not always clear.  I trow not, I believe, Luke 17:9, one that always drove me crazy as a young Christian. I had just come to know the Lord and was a baby Christian. After a few months I read in Romans 1:13 where Paul says to the Romans, “I would have come to you sooner, but I was let hitherto.” I said,  “If he was let, why didn’t he go?” I could not figure it out. In 1611 the word “let” meant to hinder, just the opposite of what we understand . We only understand the word “let” in this sense when you play tennis and someone serves and there is a “let” that hinders the game from proceeding.  Other than that,  it is totally different. You can’t have a translation use words that no-one understands  or understands  differently than they do now. “He waxed strong.” What kind of car wax were they using? “He wist not  to wit or to know. The word “ghost” has negative connotations , so when we talk about  the Holy Ghost, it brings up something different in American minds  instead of the Holy Spirit. “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Let those little rascals suffer a little before they come to me.  It means to allow. Words have changed.  If somebody comes into your church  (James 2:3) “in gay clothing.” In the last 50 years that word has been used totally differently, we don’t use it like that anymore. 

The result is that since there is changing words, we have to recognize that language has to be brought  up. For many centuries the English language was quite stable. It was controlled by two things: The Bible and Shakespeare.  Now the language has no great issues that are controlling it. And language is changing drastically and so quickly. So words mean the opposite  before you know it. My father, when you want to talk about somebody as being a really good person, he’s a real square guy. All sorts of differences. The fact that language changes so quickly means  that translations will continually have to be revised. The fact that language changes so slowly allowed the King James version to continue on for many, many, many decades and centuries,  in fact.

6. be universal

To understand this, let me point out that if you get to the universal language, when you do a translation, you have to understand what your target group is and be careful. The New English Bible, when it first came out, I liked to read it. It reads very smoothly. If I had to read through the Old Testament  quickly, I think I would use the New English Bible. It reads well. But the problem with the New English Bible is that it is too British. So in your church Sunday, if you were reading something like this, people would not understand it. I Cor 16:5+. Paul says “I shall come to Corinth after passing through Macedonia, for I am traveling by way of Macedonia, and I may stay with you, perhaps even for the whole winter. Then you could help me on my way wherever  I go next.  I do not want this to be a flying visit. I hope to spend some time with you if the Lord permits.” Stated beautifully. Then he goes on, “But I shall remain at Ephesus until  whitsuntide.” The New English Bible has changed that: “I shall stay in Ephesus until Pentecost.” That is more universal, people can understand that. 

You have to also realize that  in Mark 2:23 again we have a misunderstanding that  takes place in American culture. “One Sabbath,  he, Jesus, was going through the cornfield s. And his disciples as they went began to pluck ears of corn. “ The average American, what is he thinking of? He is thinking of maze. But for the British it is barley or wheat. Corn means grain. The American looks at it, going through the cornfields of Iowa, shucking ears. It is totally misunderstood in the American culture. You have different kinds of weights, pounds, a farthling and my favorite is the Mary Poppins translation of  Luke 12:6:”Are not sparrows five for 2-pence?” I can’t handle it. But my favorite one would be to read this in the middle of Eastern Kentucky or somewhere like that  and reading the story in John 21:6. “Sometime later Jesus showed himself to his disciples once again by the Sea of Tiberius and in this way, Simon Peter and Thomas the twin were together with Nathaniel of Cana and Galilee. The sons of Zebedee and two other disciples were also there. Simon Peter said, “I’m going out fishing. “We will go with you” said the others. So they got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.  Morning came and there stood Jesus on the beach. But the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. He called out to them, “Friends, have you caught anything? They said, “No.” He said, “Shoot the nets to starboard and you will make a catch.” The British know what “starboard” is, whether it is right or left probably, or something, backwards or forwards, something like that. It is a very British type of translation. The revision of this subsequently removes some of that to make it more accessible.

If you are ever in the market  simply for the British people, you can do that. But if you want an English translation that is universal  for all English-speaking people in the world, you have to make sure that there are on that committee  Canadian translators, American translators, British translators, South African translators, Australian translators. Because something that may seem perfectly good  English may be a horrendous idiom  in the other culture. So, to be universal, you want to take all that involved.  A lot of the translations  are sensitive to that. The Revised English is somewhat suprising. Again, it reads wonderfully in many ways, including all of a sudden  getting across something like  coinage or different weights and the like.

7. be dignified

I think another  thing you want in a translation is that it should be dignified. I don’t mean that you remove  things for political  correct ness that some people don’t like. But I think you don’t want to be unnecessarily harsh simply for the effect it may take. For instance, in the earliest translations of the Living Bible,  there is a story about  how David fled from Saul and Saul is asking Jonathan about David and Jonathan says to Saul, “David asked me if he could go to Bethlehem to take part in a family celebration” Jonathan replied. “His brother demanded that he be there, so I told him he could go ahead.” Saul boiled with rage. “You son of a bitch” he yelled at him. Grandma and Grandpa are gone for the rest of the hour. There is no way you are going to get over that. The message is lost. Meanwhile,  Johnny from junior  high says, “Mom, I like that translation.  Could you get that Bible for me” or something like that.  You don’t want to be crude simply for shock effect or something like that. Another  example of that is the cotton patch version of the New Testament . That is a really nice, nitty gritty, down-to-earth Southern translation. There are a number  of places where Paul is asked  in a dialogue with a  hypothetical  appointment: “Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid. Let it not be.” Here you would read, “Shall we continue in sin that Grace may abound? Hell, no!” Johnny has another  translation he wants, making him a Bible student or something like that.

8. avoid a theological bias

Avoiding a theological bias is maybe more easily said than done. There are some notorious  biased translations. I think for instance of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible that just avoids translating things in order to maintain its anti-acceptance of  Jesus as deity. When I got the New Testament version of the Jerusalem Bible, I liked it very much. I read lots and lots of Paul’s letters, really fine translations.  It is a Roman Catholic translation and I thought,  I wonder  how they translate Matthew 1:25 where the Greek text says, “And Joseph did as the angel of the Lord said and took Mary his wife, but knew her not until she brought forth her first born son.” The word “know” is a beautiful Biblical word that the Bible uses to describe the sexual  relationship. In other words, Joseph marries Mary, but they have no sexual consummation of that until the birth of Jesus. The implication of course is that the birth of Jesus, they live a normal husband and wife relationship. When you read then of the brothers and sisters of the Lord, they are the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary. But there are Roman Catholics saying, “Are you for the perpetual virginity of Mary” which by the way is not simply a Roman Catholic view. I remember reading in the synoptic Gospel commentary of Calvin where he argues fairly strongly for that.  In this particular translation, it read, “He did what the angel of the Lord said and though he knew not Mary, she brought forth her firstborn son.” If you can find a place where that particular construction in Greek is translated , “though he knew her not” even though he knew her not until…, I can show you 10,000 on the other side for every one.  It is not the normal way, it is theological bias that came in there.

When I was in Minnesota , one of the big mega  churches in the area was doing a study as to what  Bible they wanted to have for their pews. They asked me to be part of the study, and I was. They compared the RSV, the New International version and  some of the others that they compared. The King James was one and the Life. They asked a number of questions and one of the questions they asked was this: Which translation has the highest Christology?  What does that have to do with the translation?  Translation is which translates  the Christological  passages best?  Suppose you have the Stein translation, which translates this way: “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and laid him in a manger. He was very God of very God, the second person of the Trinity, pre-existent for all eternity.” That is a high Christology.  It is a false translation, though.  God does not need our help, by the way. Just let the  Bible say what it says, and we will be alright.  We do not have to help the Bible. What you want to say is,  which translates those passages most accurately?  And that is the most important.