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.