(6 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...A number of people have responded to some of my recent comments by asking what my preferred Bible translation is. I get asked the question a lot – especially since my book Misquoting Jesus, where I talk about the changes scribes made in the manuscripts they copied over the years. A number of readers were alarmed and wondered whether I should let scholars know about these problems. In every case I responded that yes, indeed, scholars – all scholars of the Bible – do know about these problems. Intimately. Inside and out. This is the kind of thing scholars work on. Nothing in the book would have come as a shock to anyone in the field. Most especially to Bible translators, who have to decide which Hebrew and Greek words to translate before even starting to think about how to put them into English. And so, as a result, every modern Bible translator knows about and deals with these problems.
But back to the question: which translation do I prefer? It will probably come as no surprise to learn that I prefer the one that I was (in a very limited way) involved with. I think the NRSV is the best translation of the Bible available. And I especially like it in a study edition, such as the HarperCollins Study Bible.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, NOW’S YOUR CHANCE!!!
What are your thoughts about the replacement of the Name of God, transliterated as YHWH, with the LORD and GOD?
Well, it’s traditional at least. I guess the problem is that if it were rendered YHWH then it would not be a translation but a transliteration; and if it were rendered Yahweh it would make some readers very upset indeed. Translators have to choose what to do then, and if one of the goals is to have people read the translation, then it’s probably better not to offend them!
So, this known deliberate inaccuracy (mistranslating the transliteration YHWH as “the LORD” or GOD instead of the best available rendering) is perpetuated as not to offend “some” readers. Yet, in places it IS more accurately (than LORD or GOD) rendered Jehovah. The World English Bible renders it YAHWEH (a very old and incorrect translation) and I’ve never heard any outcry against it.
Thanks for responding.
Why translate a name?
I believe all names are translated, no?
Thanks for indulging my confusion. In my limited understanding of translations – if I were to translate the phrase “My Name is Daryl” into Spanish, it would be translated “Mi nombre es Daryl.” My name, “Daryl” doesn’t change spelling although it might change pronunciation and the other words are changed into the language for translation.
I understand you to say that all names in the Bible are translated – but I don’t understand why Matthias doesn’t remain Matthias.
Curious…
Great question. I don’t know why that is the tradition in the translation of ancient languages. But it is!
Thank you! However, WHY don’t Bible “scholars” translate Adam’s wife’s name correctly? Where in the world did EVE ever come from? It’s CHAVA! Even the Jewish publications use Eve. Bugs me so much. But thank you for this.
My guess is that they are giving a translation, rather than a transliteration (as with all the other names), no?
Alas, yes.
I know you’ve been critical of the Jesus Seminar (or at least some of its leading members) in the past, so I’d be interested to hear what you make of the (SV) Miller/Funk “Complete Gospels.”
I think it performs a valuable function. My main problem is that it doesn’t give all the other Gospels! I’ll be publishing my own edition of the forty or so Gospels that didn’t make it into the NT this coming year (with my colleage Zlatko Plese; we have already published a scholarly edition, in a book called The Apocryphal Gospels, from Oxford Press this past year.)
Which one? The one edited by Wayne Meeks or the one edited by Harold Attridge? Comments on Amazon give one I’m kind of worried about, stating the paper is thin, the margins are very narrow, etc. Thank you for commenting on this.
Yes, I’m not thinking of the format of the book itself but of its content. The most recent one is probably the one to go with.
Thank you.
KJV-Only, man! That’s the way to go. Forget the non-English speaking people. There is only one true translation! 😉
A couple of years ago an acquaintance recommened the ESV Study Bible, so I bought it. It has a lot of extra information, is well organized and I enjoy using it for the most part. About a year ago I read on their own website a discussion of bible translations where they said that the reason they used “virgin” and not “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 was to emphasize the prophetic nature of the verse. Haven’t they ever heard of the term “circular reasoning”?
Have you looked at the translation at net.bible.org? I’ve only just started learning Greek (from William Mounce’s book), so I cannot make any serious claim about the accuracy, but I find the comments about the translation to be very honest and not the typical biblical inerrancy that one expects from evangelicals.
No, haven’t looked at it, I’m sorry to say.
A question on the translation of the verse John 1:1 in the NRSV (which I have a copy of) :
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
The NIV (which I have a copy of) says the same thing; the NKJV (which I have a copy of) says the same thing; the Interlinear Bible(Hebrew/Greek/English) I have says: “In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.”
However the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures Bible which I have says: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was A god.”
Without stating the belief that it is a corruption of the translation, can you please comment on the actual word/s used in the sentence for the NWT to translate it as ‘the Word was a god” ?
Thank you
This is too complicated for a reply here. I’ll put it on my list of questions to answer on a post on the blog (a growing list, I’m sorry to say!)
Thank you for this explanation. I’m really curious to see your reasoning behind the dislike of other translations. For example, as a Southern Baptist, my pastor uses the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which, from what I can gather, was created as a response (?) to the New International Version (the one I grew up with).
I don’t know which *translation* the Holman uses. (New King James?)
I don’t understand; from what I saw on Wikipedia (granted not always the best source of information), HCSB is a translation from Greek and Hebrew, not a rewording from another English translation. Is that what you were implying? If that is true, that would be problomatic, I agree!
I just looked it up, and you’re right. It is a fresh translation, brought out by fundamentalists and conservative evangelical Christian scholars, all of whom are committed to the view that the Bible is completely inerrant.
Textual Base of the HCSB® (Holman)
The textual base for the New Testament [NT] is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition. The text for the Old Testament [OT] is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th edition.
Yes, those are the bases used for virtually every translation today.
Do you have any specific passages where you wish the NRSV had rendered the translation differently?
Yes, I’ll post on this.
Thanks, Bart! 🙂
What do you think of OT translations commonly used in modern Judaism, such as JPS or Artscroll? What do you think of so-called “literal” translations like Young’s Literal Translation?
I haven’t studied them at any length, I’m sorry to say.
Another item to add to your bulging to-do list for future posts: outline some instances where the grammar or vocabulary is highly ambiguous and problematic (selection from both HB & NT), with significant historical or theological implications.
Professor Ehrman,
What are your thoughts on the New English Translation as well as on Chronological translations? I’m also curious if inclusiveness standards have in any way changed the intended meaning of the authors of the books of the bible. Isn’t it best to attempt to translate the text as earnestly to the earliest manuscripts as possible? I ask this as a former Christian, now atheist.
All the best,
The New English is very fine. I don’t know the Chronological translation.
Is there a difference between Harpercollins NRSV and Wesley NRSV, that you think is significant? I need a new bible and can’t decide which one to buy.
TYVM
The translation will be the same. The notes will be different. I don’t know the Wesley, and so can’t say. But the HarperCollins is *terrific*. It’s what I use with my students.