Olsen Park Church of Christ


How to Choose a Bible Translation

(Part Two)

Introduction.  Last week we began a lesson on “How To Choose a Bible Translation.”  This is a follow up on a series that we did back in 2007 entitled “How We Got the Bible.”  If you were not here when we did that series, I would recommend that you go back and listen to the series on the website. The audio and PowerPoint files are all posted, and I believe you will find that it lays the groundwork for understanding why translations differ.

Textual Basis. 

      We noted last week that one of the key factors that was explained in that series, is what is called the textual basis behand translation. That is how much weight is given to modern manuscript discoveries.  If translations of the New Testament give more weight to modern discoveries, they could be said to use a “critical text” as their textual basis.  If a translation relies more on standard texts as they have been preserved through history, it uses the “received text” (or Textus Receptus) as its textual basis.   We also considered briefly…

Why Do Translations Differ?

A.  Differences in language.  Languages communicate different things in different ways and change meaning over time.

B.  A different textual basis. Does the translation use the Textus Receptus or a critical text?

C.  Different doctrinal perspectives. In what ways do the beliefs of the translators influence their translation?

D.  Style of translation. Most of our focus has concerned four styles of translation.  We have looked at the paraphrase and the interlinear. In this lesson we will finish looking at dynamic equivalence (or “thought for thought”) translations and end with formal equivalence (or “word for word”) translations.

Different Styles of Translation:

III.  Dynamic Equvalence.

A.        The New International Version. International Bible Society. Grand Rapids:  Zondervan Pub. 1978. This has become the most popular translation among many Protestants in America. It did not absolutely reject the Textus Receptus, but it did rely heavily on critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Although it promotes itself as the product of translators from various religious views, it demonstrates a blatant Calvinistic bias.

1.         Romans 8:5: “Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires…” The Gr. sarx means simply “flesh.” This rendering is a reflection of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Hereditary Depravity to speak of the “flesh” as the “sinful nature.” Jesus shared the same sarx with mankind, yet, He had no “sinful nature” (cf. Heb. 2:14).

2.         The NIV in the last few decades has become embroiled in controversy over gender-neutral language.  In 1996 NIV issued an “inclusive language edition” with gender-neutral language, which was opposed by many American religious leaders.

·    Psalm 8:4 the originally read, “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?” (NIV). 

·    However, an edition called the New International Reader’s Edition (1994) aimed at children reads, “What is a human being that you think about him?  What is a son of man that you take care of him?” (NIrV).

·    Today’s New International Version (2005) abandons all gender references, reading, “What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” (TNIV).

This might seem innocent enough in this text, but it reflects a willingness to reject gender distinctions, roles, and references which are present in the original text in order to appease modern prejudices and preferences. We don’t have that right!    

B.        The Dangers of Dynamic Equivalent Translation.  Leland Ryken, in his work entitled, Choosing a Bible, offers “Five Negative Effects of Dynamic Equivalence.”  These are: 1) Taking Liberties in Translation; 2) Destabilization of the Text; 3) What the Bible “Means” vs. What the Bible Says; 4) Falling Short of What We Should Expect; and 5) A Logical and Linguistic Impossibility. Note a couple of thoughts he offers in this section:

1.         “Dynamic equivalent translators believe that the translator has the duty to make interpretive decisions for the ignorant reader. Eugene Nida, for example, claims that ‘the average reader is usually much less capable of making correct judgments about . . . alternative meanings than is the translator, who can make use of the best scholarly judgments on ambiguous passages.’  But if this is true, why is it that translators, with their allegedly superior and reliable knowledge, cannot agree among themselves? Instead of leading the Bible reading public into a better grasp of the original text, dynamic equivalent translations have confused the public by multiplying the range of renditions of various Bible passages” (15).

2.         Commenting on the fact that dynamic equivalence remove indications of the actual wording of a text he quotes, Ray Van Leeuwen, from his article “We Really Do Need Another Translation,” to say, “It is hard to know what the Bible means when we are uncertain about what it says. . . . The problem with [functional equivalent] translations (i.e., most modern translations) is that they prevent the reader from inferring biblical meaning because they change what the Bible said” (17).  We agree wholeheartedly!

      Because of the danger of bias, misinterpretation, and error, a dynamic equivalence (or thought for thought) translation should not be used in teaching, preaching, public reading, or as a primary source in Bible study

IV.  “Formal Equivalence” (word for word).  A “formal equivalent” (or literal) translation seeks to overcome the awkwardness of an interlinear translation while representing the actual content of the original text. Whenever possible a word for word equivalence is established in language which is clear, but parallel to the content of the original. The degree to which a text maintains this correspondence moves it up or down on the scale between a paraphrase and an interlinear.

      No translation is flawless, however, translations which seek to establish a formal equivalence between the original language and the English translation are less prone to bias, misinterpretation, and blatant error. In our consideration of “How We Got the Bible” we followed the steps which led to the production of the King James Version. While recent years have seen renewed interest in pre-King James translations, we will start our consideration of literal or “formal equivalent” translations with a consideration of the…

A.        King James Version (or Authorized Version). Produced in 1611 by 64 scholars under the authority of King James I. Revised in 1873 by the Church of England into the form generally used today. Undoubtedly the KJV is the most influential English Bible in history.  Based on the Textus Receptus in the New Testament, it built upon the earlier works of Tyndale and others, while avoiding sectarian commentary and over-reliance on the Vulgate. It remains the basis for countless Bible study resources and has shaped the vocabulary of religious vocabulary in English. It is a wonderful, literal translation which preserves the content and basic structure of the original languages, but it does have its own problems.

1.          It consistently translates hades and sheol “hell.”  Acts 2:31: “…of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell…” The Gr. hades does not refer to final judgment, but to the place of the dead prior to judgment (cf. Rev. 20:13-14).

2.          It uses some names and expressions which are anachronistic (i.e. misplaced in terms of time). Acts 12:4: “…intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” The Gr. pascha refers to the Jewish feast of Passover, and not to “Easter,” which was a man-made development  after the New Testament as a memorial of Christ’s death.

3.          It includes a doubtful passage.  1 John 5:7 (the so-called Johnannine Comma) : “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” While this text reflects a truth taught in the New Testament, there are no ancient Greek manuscripts (prior to the eleventh century) which have this reading. It was not in Erasmus’ first editions of the Greek New Testament and was only inserted when a late manuscript (which may have had it inserted into it from the Latin) was brought to him.

4.          It also uses language which has changed meaning over the 400 years since it was first produced.  For example, Lewis Foster, in his book Selecting a Translation of the Bible, points out the following:

Obsolete words:

Carriages (Acts 21:15) means baggage.

Script (Mark 6:8) means wallet or bag.  

Fetched a compass (Acts 28:13) means sailed around.

Changes of meaning:

Letteth (2 Thess. 2:7) means restrains.

Prevent (1 Thess. 4:15) means precede.

Charger (Mark 6:25) means platter.

Conversation (James 3:13) means conduct.

I have a book in my library called The Language of the King James Bible, which is essentially a dictionary defining the meaning of the Middle English wording for modern English readers. This is a serious obstacle when it comes to teaching, preaching, and private study.  To resolve this, a number of modernized versions of the King James Version have been produced.  The most popular of these is…

5.          The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub. , 1982.  This translation retains the style and flow of the KJV while eliminating obsolete words and expressions. It is close enough to the older KJV that the reader can readily use resources based on the KJV without confusion. 

·    The NKJV is not perfect.  It retains the doubtful text of 1 John 5:7.

·    Some see its use of Textus Receptus as a “weakness.”  In my judgment, it is a rash conclusion to assume that any text which is older is closer to the original. This presumes that flawed or altered manuscripts would receive the same wear and use that accurate manuscripts would receive. That is a dangerous assumption to make.

·    The NKJV does cite in footnotes all pertinent evidence from modern discoveries.

·    I believe that the NKJV is the best choice currently available which maintains a connection to the vocabulary, influence, and resources of the KJV while using contemporary English that corresponds directly to the wording and structure of the original text. It is literal without being awkward. It is readable while maintaining the content of the original text.

B.        American Standard Version 1901. Was the first American translation which utilized 19th century manuscript discoveries into a revision of the KJV. It was one of the most literal translations ever done, even to the point that it was somewhat awkward to read. It broke the convention of translating the Hebrew name for God “LORD” and rendered it “Jehovah.” It retained the Old English forms “thee” and “ye” to distinguish singular and plural forms of the second person pronoun. The ASV was widely used by many brethren in the 20th century. Now it has become harder and harder to find in print.  Star Bible Publications is the only publisher currently producing the ASV, although it is easily found in various electronic formats and online.

1.          New American Standard Bible. Lockman Foundation.1971, rev. 1995. To overcome the awkwardness of the ASV and to utilize discoveries made since the ASV was produced the NASB was produced. It remained highly literal but improved the readability of the ASV, utilizing more contemporary vocabulary that the ASV.

·    The NASB is an excellent translation but moves some readings of the Textus Receptus into the footnotes. This, becomes awkward in study when such readings are encountered.

C.       Revised Standard. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub. 1952.  This text was the first revision of the Tyndale-KJV-ASV tradition produced by liberal scholars influenced by the National Council of Churches. Its translators did not hold a conservative view of inspiration.  H. Leo Boles, the Gospel preacher who authored the commentary of Matthew for the Gospel Advocate Commentary series, was asked to participate and declined after one meeting.  This liberalism demonstrated itself in passages such as  Isaiah 7:14. Instead of affirming the prophecy of the virgin birth (quoted in Matt. 1:23) it rendered the passage, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.”

1.          New Revised Standard Version. In 1989 the National Council of Churches produced a revision of the RSV which utilized discoveries made since the original RSV. It retained the liberal elements of the RSV such as “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 and moved closer to dynamic equivalence by incorporating gender-neutral language in references to humans while retaining masculine references in to Deity.

D.        English Standard Version. Standard Bible Society. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books and Bibles, 2001. This is one of the newest literal translations which describes itself as “essentially literal” striving to be “transparent to the original text.”

1.          The ESV is very similar to the NASB.  It utilizes the same textual basis and maintains a conservative “word for word” correspondence to the original text.

2.          It has deliberately resisted efforts to impose “gender-neutral” language into the text.

3.          The editors of the ESV, made the unfortunate decision not to follow the custom of italicizing wording supplied by translators. This can deceive the reader into thinking that a word or phrase (which may be inferred in the text) is present when it actually is not.  For example, Romans 8:5, “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.” This is an accurate translation but it duplicates the words “set their minds on” when the Greek does not. If this was in italics it would be clear.

4.          The ESV is inconsistent in some choices. For example, in Matthew 16:18 it incorrectly translates hades, “hell” even though it correctly renders it “hades” in Acts 2:31 and Luke 16:23.

Even so, the ESV maintains a careful respect for the content of original text avoiding biased translations of controversial passages.

Conclusion. Translation is a difficult matter. If it was possible it would be wonderful if every student of Scripture could learn Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. This can’t happen. Even so, while a student of the Bible should use great caution regarding his or her choice of a translation, we should never imagine that God’s word can not be understood in its simplicity. Even the worst translations preserve the force of this simplicity. Because of the danger which paraphrase and “dynamic equivalence” translations risk of bringing bias, misinterpretation, and error into the text, such versions should never be used as our primary source in study, teaching, preaching, or public reading. Among formal equivalent translations, the Revised Standard, and New Revised Standard demonstrate a far too liberal view of inspiration and gender distinctions.  While the English Standard Version would have been stronger with the use of italics to indicate editorial editions, it stands with the King James Version, American Standard, New American Standard, and New King James Version as good translations for study, reading, preaching, and teaching. In my judgment, by retaining readings from the Textus Receptus, while noting variants in the footnotes, the New King James Version is the most useful formal equivalence translation currently available.

Kyle Pope 2010

  Home     Directions     Times     Elders     Deacons     Preachers     Lessons     Members Section     Post Question     Contact Us