(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...QUESTION:
Do you have any plans to publish your own “best” version of the NT in English? From reading several of your books, it does seem as though you probably already have a translation sitting in a drawer somewhere. I have not been able to find scholarly reconstruction that was produced in the last three and a half decades. Most of the newer “translations” are theologically motivated and sound more like modern slang. Have any of your colleagues/ students produced a readable version you would recommend? (Thousands of footnotes do not make for a readable text!) I would very much like to see your translation/interpretation sitting on a bookshelf.
RESPONSE:
No, as it turns out, I have never written out a full translation of the New Testament. For several reasons. First, there are a number of excellent translations already available that have been done by some of the best NT scholars on the planet. My translation would be different, but not necessarily better. Of course, I would think that where mine differed it would be better: otherwise I wouldn’t translate it differently! But I don’t think I can personally improve on what is out there. Relatedly, that is because the translations now available have, for the most part, been done by committees. That has good and bad sides to it, but the good side is very good: it means that individual idiosyncrasies are taken off the table, so that one’s own unusual views that do not have widespread scholarly support do not enter into the translation. Finally, I think it is more than a bit arrogant for an individual to think s/he can do a better translation than what is out there for a book so widely translated as the Bible. That’s not true for every ancient text, of course, but there are lots and lots of Bible translations done by committees that have spent many years, in most cases, on them.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
The NASB I had was pretty laughable in how biased it was. It actually said that John’s gospel was “obviously written by eye witnesses” and tried to give each book in the NT the earliest date possible. I think I was reading some of your books at the time that talked about the gospels’ problems as historical records, and how late they all are, so it was pretty eye-opening to see how much certain scholars try to obscure things, if not outright lie about them.
I am learning New Testament Greek and Hebrew. Of course, the danger is that a little knowledge can be dangerous. I am 51 years old, so I have a some sense of urgency, but I’m also enjoying my rekindled love for scriptural study from an historical perspective that overlaps with the previous devotional perspective. Your work has been very good for me, and contrary to diminishing my faith, it has only helped me to crystallize what I actually believe.
Hi Bill,
I like your comment and I agree that Bart’s perspective is an important part of the equation we should consider when deciding exactly what it is that we believes. I just turned 80, so at 51 there is not need for you to be in a hurry.
Regards, margret
Apart from how biblical translations have been produced, whether by individuals or committees, the more basic question should be “What were the words to begin with?” Were they man made, or something superhuman?
For the better part of human history most people have overrated them as “divinely inspired,” and that, I think, is the crux of the historical problem. If the original messages came from God, whether in Hebrew or Greek, or Aramaic, it becomes a matter of eternal consequence to get the interpretations right. If they came from men, however, bible scholars and ordinary folks can approach what’s written, whether in translation or not, just as they would any other literary production from bygone days.
Thanks for the free for all invitation. I know the following is somewhat off topic but it is possibly related a bit to how Jesus became God to Peter and Peter’s subsequent future. In your opinion do you think that Matt 16.18-19 is possibly in the autograph or not? It doesn’t appear in the other gospels and sounds suspiciously “churchy”. Also would you know if one takes these verses from Greek back into Aramaic, does it lead to something that makes sense?
Yes, it is absolutely “churchy,” but is almost certainly original to Matthew’s Gospel. I don’t know of any arguments to suggest that they started out as Aramaic; Matthew has borrowed the scene from Mark (in Greek) and expanded it significantly in light of his own situation, which includes an established church! He puts a church form of discipline on the lips of Jesus in order to justify the practices of his own community. At least that has long been the common interpretation among critical scholars.
I can see why you value the translation-by-committee approach, but sometimes individual, perhaps idiosyncratic, translations capture something that is lost in committee. Not all individual translations are equal: I remember from my university days cursing whoever had taken the Loeb of certain Aristophanes plays out of the library, leaving me with a Greek monoglot and various dreadful translations, some of which were even in verse. But at the other extreme, one of the books that has pride of place on my bookshelf (okay, currently in a pile on my desk…) is Richard Friedman’s Commentary on the Torah, which I use mainly because of (1) certain qualities of his translation — chiefly readability, evenness in renderings, and reluctance to completely restructure the syntax of sentences (which seems to be an all too common vice of committees!) — and (2) the parallel Hebrew text. I’m sure there’s a place on the market for a good individual translation of the NT with parallel Greek.
Good point!
“the best thing to do is to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek”
For learning Classical Latin, Wheelock’s grammar is a popular and affordable introduction. What are the best texts for learning Greek and Hebrew for Bible study? I also admit that in my heart of hearts I would kill to be able to read Aeschylus, Plato and Euripides directly.
Well, I’m not sure. I think teaching your self is very hard. I guess I’d recommend the book called Athenadze for Greek, and Leong Seouw’s grammar for Hebrew.
are modern translations “smoothed out” and adjusted for theological needs ie make it less violent, sexist, allow an argument to say “jesus meant Y when he said “let the dead bury the dead” when really the best originals suggest he meant y ect?
Some modern translations do indeed smooth out the text — sometimes even erasing contradictions by the way they translate things!
Are there any 1st century documents written in aramaic?
Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Aramaic. The problem is we have virtually no written documents from first-century Palestine. (Josephus was writing in Rome, and we have him only in Greek.)
Since we are talking about translations here, ( i actually have a bigger question that I will hopefully address regarding the Patristic Fathers), what do you think of the New World Translation by the Jehovah’s Witness organization?
Like most people, i just assumed it was a biased sectarian translation. I had heard a few good things about it and my interest in alternative non-Trinitarian renderings of scripture were also of interest. Yet, i still assumed that the book was in error or biased when i compared it to the most popular orthodox translations– assuming all these can’t be wrong–especially considering the commitees and scholarship you’ve mentioned above.
Someone, likely a Jehovah’s Witness, introduced me to Jason BeDuhn’s book, Truth in Translation! Or I might have run into it on a website somewhere. I loved the book. He actually compares the most popular translations to the NWT and comments on them. He talks about the various biases and errors people make when reading a translation. At the end, he praises the New World Translation as better by far! I was not expecting a sectarian Bible to get such a raving review!!! He says this is his preferred translation for teaching Biblical Greek.
It was this book that completely changed my view of the New World Translation. Other places had noted that the NWT would be the most literal translation in the English language and would be extremely good if it wasn’t for it doctrinal peculiarities. Now when i read such statements, I see that most Orthodox scholars really reject the book because of their views on the Trinity and the JW’s translations is viewed as heterodox in that area.
Putting Evangelical scholars aside, why do you think that academia has ignored the JW’s translation if it is a “remarkably good” translation as BeDuhn insists? If the book is good scholarship and an excellent alternative to orthodoxy, I really don’t understand why academia would ignore its significance particularly those who have no stake in the Trinity debate. I say this because many people wonder what is tenable, fair, honest, legal, etc in Bible translation. You have Dan Wallace and many other scholars saying that John 1:1 should only be translated one way. That saying “the Word was a god” is amateur, etc. Yet you have Coptic John 1:1 saying basically exact same thing, and they were fluent in Greek!
I’ve read quite a few books on Christology and I’ve listened to the arguments of William Lane Craig, i simply don’t see how the early Christians had any notion of Trinitarian doctrine. It seems more natural to me from the Christian scriptures that Christianity may have evolved from a Socinian Christology to perhaps an Arian view then to a more Trinitarian view. I don’t find Trinitarian responses to Arianism as having much validity. (I’m quite familar with the various heresies. I’m just giving a simplicity example of how the Christian view of Jesus was certainly not Trinitarian in the first century.)
At one point i was interested in how William Whiston’s translation of the NT might add some insights, but he seemed to have stuck with the traditional renderings of Scripture. It would be nice to get Newton’s or Whiston’s views on key scriptures as they were competent scholars.
One question on the Patristics is why Whiston’s translation of Josephus has been well accepted and reproduced but not his translations of the Church Fathers? Are the heretical translations? Would you not agree that tenable alternative translations would be interesting? I read the most popular patristic translations with skepticism because they seem extremely orthodox and reconcilable to Trinitarian doctrine in many places when there may be reason to question whether these translations may be biased to support Nicene Orthodoxy. If modern translations are biased about Biblical Christology, then surely they would try to make the patristic fathers fit the model.
The best I’ve seen are JW quotations of the Church Fathers found in a booklet they have called “Should you believe in the Trinity” or something like that. Many have criticized the book, but mostly they are simply taking the translations of the Church Fathers that can be found online (assuming them to be more accurate) and then showing how they differ from the JW renderings. With what I’ve learned about Bible translation especially on scriptures pertaining to Christology, I’m skeptical of that methodology.
There are other Arian or socinian groups, but I’m not sure that many are doing much scholarly work. I believe that modern-day heretical groups, if they would become more engaged, could contribute much more to the discussion defending their version of early Christianity. I don’t think the Oneness movements are doing much either. All these churches seem too focused on the present and theology rather than academia.
I hope this adds to the discussion. I did not intend to unfold all this here but It didn’t seem to make sense to spread it out across several posts.
What books of yours might be related to these issues? I have several on my list of books to read I just don’t have a lot of time. and NOT ALL YOUR BOOKS ARE KINDLE BOOKS! Audiobooks are good too. I buy them both. Its good for review.
Thanks again.
I’m afraid I’ve never gone to the trouble of checking the NWT against the Greek, except in John 1:1 (“the word was a god”) which I do not think is the right translation.