(6 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...I have indicated that my preferred translation is the NRSV. Everyone, of course, has their favorite. My judgment is that among main-line, serious biblical scholars, the NRSV is far and away the preferred translation. But it is not so among general readers. I believe the King James Bible (the KJV) (or its slight revision: The New King James) and the New International Version (NIV) are better sellers among the population at large. So let me say a few words about these two. (Some readers of this blog will want to write to me to ask what I think of their own preferred translation: the Jerusalem Bible; the New English Version; the New American Standard Bible; etc etc. Most of the time I tell them that it’s fine. It just isn’t the one that I think is the best)
First: The King James. Published in 1611, the KJV (or “Authorized Version” as it was called, since it was a translation “authorized” by the head of the Anglican Church – guess who? King James of England), is one of the great classics of the English language and ought to be read and learned by everyone. If you want to read a fascinating account of the making of the KJV, see Adam Nicolson’s terrific study, God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW OR BE CAST INTO THE OUTER DARKNESS WHERE THERE IS WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.
One of the nice things about the internet is it makes it easy to compare passages of different translations. I’m not at all a biblical scholar, and maybe I’m just being nostalgic, but the Bible that I initially read many years ago was the Good News Bible translation and it remains my favorite. It’s not poetic but it uses very simple language and never seems to whitewash or obscure any of the difficult material. And it’s generous with footnotes on verses with controversial translations.
Do you think we can ever hope to accurately translate the thoughts expressed by people so primitive, dedicated, foreign and removed from us by years and oceans?
Well, I think some attempts are better than others, even if perfect translation is impossible.
I share your view that translations should not be driven by theological views. Nonetheless I can see how translation committees might justify application of theological views in translation when the vocabulary or grammar is ambiguous and problematic. Then again, I see application of theology can be abused in the translation process and in the interpretation process, especially under the motto of “Scripture interprets scripture” – namely the better understood parts of the Bible are used to understand the more difficult parts. It is abused when the difficult parts have fairly clear philological meanings but are awkward for the translator’s or interpreter’s theological stance, and are then smoothed out to cohere with texts more congenial to one’s theology.
I suspect the ESV has even stronger evangelical/Reformed bias than the NIV – when the committee included the likes of Wayne Grudem and J.I. Packer, both of whom are better known as (conservative) theologians than biblical scholars.
In my research of the translations, I found there are HUGE differences.
A Christian website called: The King James Bible Page shows the various contradictions and omissions between the various translations of the Bible.
There are Version Verse Comparison Charts and it states: “Most people believe the new versions are just ‘harmless’ updating of words and made easier to understand. Nothing could be further from the Truth! ”
“The new versions “take away” complete verses from the words of God. And as with Eve (see Genesis 3:1), it’s all done very subtle.”
Any comments?
Yes, there are significant differences. But I don’t think the devil is behind it all!
Are you sure?<a href="https://controversy.wearscience.com/design/devil/(My fiancé got this T-shirt for me for my birthday! 😉
who said the devil writes anything?:) of course MEN are behind the changes, omissions, deletions etc, the point is, it has been happening over history for a reason & that is to influence what the public knows and what it does not know.
When I was a kid I was enamored of the infamous GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN paraphrase (or “dynamic translation” as I heard it referred to). I liked the little stick figure drawings. I don’t suppose anyone ever walks into class carrying one of those?
Not into my class, anyway. 🙂
Ever consider writing the notes for a study bible? It would be nice to have a study bible by someone who is not religious, but an expert nonetheless. I don’t think something like this has come out yet.
Interesting idea. I’m not sure there’d be much of a market for it though!
You’re probably right, but I would have never predicted that non-conspiracy theory books on the NT and early Christianity would become NY times best sellers!
My biggest beef has been the ways in which Matthew 19:12 are translated in some versions, including the NIV. As you know, the Greek is perfectly clear: some people (literally) “eunuchize themselves” for the kingdom of heaven. Yet the NIV (at least here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A12&version=NIV and here http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/19-12.html ) has instead either they “choose to live like eunuchs” or they “renounce marriage.” This seems to me a clear case of the translators wanting to soften the original message. Do you agree?
Well, I’m not sure the verse is clear; are you saying that “make themselves eunuchs” means “castrate themselves”? I wonder if Matthew supported self-castration for the sake of the kingdom. If so, I’m not sure what it means! (Why would it be for the sake of the kingdom?)
I do think εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς means “castrated themselves.” I don’t know why it would mean anything else; just a cursory look through some of the other texts, it’s used to mean that pretty literally (Eusebius on Origen, obviously, and Lucian on Ouranos, also Philostratus in a reference to cutting away vines). As to why Matthew would say this, God knows (or not)! I guess it fits with all the other anti-family material in the synoptics, though. If you don’t think it’s clear, however, then perhaps I’ll revise my beef with the NIV; maybe their translations reflect genuine puzzlement and not an attempt to soften the text (but I have my doubts, for the same reasons you enumerate above). That still leaves me with plenty of complaints!
Yes, I’ve long thought that Origen did not actually take it literally, but it was his enemies who *claimed* he did, and that this was the report about it that Eusebius heard a century later.
Sure, fair enough. But when he uses εὐνουχίζω, he uses it to mean “castrate,” right? That’s all I meant.
I”m not sure. I suppose so. It’s an extremely rare word in Greek, and lexicographers debate whether it must always refer to literal castration of not. I really should know this. About twenty years ago I was on a dissertation committee at Duke that dealt with the interpretation of the verse in the early Christian tradition, and all I remember is being made absolutely queasy by the author’s description of various forms of (and reasons for) sexual mutilation attested in the ancient sources. Grisly stuff. Guess I should have remembered more about the verse, though, huh?
And by him I mean Eusebius.
Thanks for letting me run it by you. There’s a great sample speech you may have seen in Libanius’ progymnasmata titled, “What a Eunuch Might Say If He Fell In Love.” It’s pretty entertaining. He definitely (obviously) uses it to mean castrate there! “What nature has given me, I have removed by skill (techne)”. It’s fantastic.
Q concerning Dan 3: 25. What is the best way to accurately translate this the KJV and a few others emphasize Jesus by putting a definite article in front of son of God, and could this be a bit anachronistic?
I”m not sure which verse you’re referring to. Daniel 3:25 does not talk aout the Son of Man and has no relationship to Jesus (who wasn’t born till long after)
I didn’t think it did by looking at other trans’s. but the KJV and others render the phrase like this “and the form of the fourth is like THE Son of God.” readers are interpreting this as the NT S.O.G
Ah, my bad. I botched it. For some reason when I read 3:25 I was thinking 3:5. (even though I replied about 3:25!). Yup, I see the problem. The phrase in Aramaic is bar-elohim — “a son of the gods.” “A son of” in Aramaic usually means something like “one with the characteristics of,” or even just the indefinite article “a.” So the NRSV translates it as “a god” — meaning a divine being. This is the kind of terminology one could use for an angel, for example, or some other super-human being. The King James translators were following the old Christina interpretation that Christ was the one who brought salvation from fire, and so they took the liberty of translating it as THE Son of God….
great thank you DR. This will help me, I study with people who read from the KJV and the question has come up a couple times in amazement how Nebuchadnezzar recognized recognized “Jesus”
OKI went and looked at the NRSV there it talks about the 4th man in verse 92. This may be a silly question but why are most versions missing much of what’s in the NRSV in that chapter? Thank you
I believe the NRSV ends the chapter with v. 30.
Dr. Er, I hope to tell end of my question makes sense i’m learning words as I follow you and others!
I only have access to the NRSVUE how does it compare to the NRSV?
THe UE stands for Updated Edition. It is not a full revision of the NRSV (the way the NRSV was of the RSV), but more of a touch-up, updating of it given advances in scholarship and new understandings. Most peole will not find it signfiicantly different on the whole.