Bible Translations:Which Ones are Best?

Bible Translations:Which Ones are Best?

Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2008Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2008

OutlineOutlineI. The History of English Translations

II. The Different Theories of Translations

III. The Criteria of a Good Translation

IV. The Conclusions about Translations

I. The History of English Translations

II. The Different Theories of Translations

III. The Criteria of a Good Translation

IV. The Conclusions about Translations

I. The History of Major Translations A. Earliest Translations 1. Syria Peshitta (Aramaic). This was the

language of Jesus and the early church (Acts 11:26). The Peshitta comes from the Mid-2nd cent. to early 3rd century A.D.

2. Old Latin (c. 200 A.D.). It was translated from the LXX. It was widely used in North Africa by Tertullian and Cyprian (3rd cent.). It was the forerunner of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.

(Also Ethiopic, Coptic, and Armenian trans.)

I. The History of Major Translations A. Earliest Translations 1. Syria Peshitta (Aramaic). This was the

language of Jesus and the early church (Acts 11:26). The Peshitta comes from the Mid-2nd cent. to early 3rd century A.D.

2. Old Latin (c. 200 A.D.). It was translated from the LXX. It was widely used in North Africa by Tertullian and Cyprian (3rd cent.). It was the forerunner of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.

(Also Ethiopic, Coptic, and Armenian trans.)

B. Medieval Translation The Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) It is the most long-enduring and

influential translation of all time. It was the standard Bible of Christendom for over 1000 years! It was written in the common (“vulgar,” i.e., popular) language of the day, like the universal trade-language called konie Greek of the NT.

B. Medieval Translation The Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) It is the most long-enduring and

influential translation of all time. It was the standard Bible of Christendom for over 1000 years! It was written in the common (“vulgar,” i.e., popular) language of the day, like the universal trade-language called konie Greek of the NT.

C. Modern English Translations Wycliffe Bible (1380)- It was translated

by hand from the Latin before the printing press. People paid a load of hay to read it for one day. First printed form was in 18th cent. Wycliffe’s enemies were not able to kill him, but his bones were later dug up and burned posthumously.

C. Modern English Translations Wycliffe Bible (1380)- It was translated

by hand from the Latin before the printing press. People paid a load of hay to read it for one day. First printed form was in 18th cent. Wycliffe’s enemies were not able to kill him, but his bones were later dug up and burned posthumously.

Tyndale’s New Testament (1525).

It was condemned by the Roman Church. So, it was produced in Europe and smuggled into England in sacks of flour. Tyndale was burned at the stake (1535). Some 80% of it was adopted by the King James Version.

Tyndale’s New Testament (1525).

It was condemned by the Roman Church. So, it was produced in Europe and smuggled into England in sacks of flour. Tyndale was burned at the stake (1535). Some 80% of it was adopted by the King James Version.

Coverdale’s Bible (1535). Miles Coverdale was an assistant to Tyndale, and he produced the first complete Bible in English. It was the first Bible to circulate freely in England.

Matthew’s Bible (1537). “Thomas Matthew” was a pen name of John Rogers, a friend of Tyndale’s who also died at the stake under Catholic Queen Mary. It was the first State authorized Bible in England. It used chapter divisions but not verses.

First Chapters— Stephen Langton (A.D. 1227), Archbishop of Canterbury.

First Verses— Robert Stephanus (A. D. 1551 in Greek NT).

Coverdale’s Bible (1535). Miles Coverdale was an assistant to Tyndale, and he produced the first complete Bible in English. It was the first Bible to circulate freely in England.

Matthew’s Bible (1537). “Thomas Matthew” was a pen name of John Rogers, a friend of Tyndale’s who also died at the stake under Catholic Queen Mary. It was the first State authorized Bible in England. It used chapter divisions but not verses.

First Chapters— Stephen Langton (A.D. 1227), Archbishop of Canterbury.

First Verses— Robert Stephanus (A. D. 1551 in Greek NT).

The Great Bible (1539). The title came from its large size. It was initiated by Thomas Cromwell who served Henry VIII. Its verses became the basis for the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1549).

The Geneva Bible (1560). This was the Reformer’s Bible produced in Switzerland under John Knox. It was used by Puritans, Shakespeare, Milton and was carried to America on the Mayflower. It divided the text into numbered verses. It is also called “The Breeches Bible” since in Gen. 3:7 Adam was said to have sewn “breeches” (leaves) together for covering.

The Great Bible (1539). The title came from its large size. It was initiated by Thomas Cromwell who served Henry VIII. Its verses became the basis for the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1549).

The Geneva Bible (1560). This was the Reformer’s Bible produced in Switzerland under John Knox. It was used by Puritans, Shakespeare, Milton and was carried to America on the Mayflower. It divided the text into numbered verses. It is also called “The Breeches Bible” since in Gen. 3:7 Adam was said to have sewn “breeches” (leaves) together for covering.

The Bishop’s Bible (1568). It was initiated by Queen Elizabeth and carried out under the auspices of the Church of England. It was intended to counteract the Calvinistic biases of the Puritan Geneva Bible. Its lasting significance is that it was the starting point for the King James Version.

The Bishop’s Bible (1568). It was initiated by Queen Elizabeth and carried out under the auspices of the Church of England. It was intended to counteract the Calvinistic biases of the Puritan Geneva Bible. Its lasting significance is that it was the starting point for the King James Version.

The King James Version (1611). It is the most famous English

Bible of all time, still loved by many four hundred years later. It was both a literal and literary translation that probably will never be excelled.

It died of “old age,” including (1) outdated language, (2) an outdated text, (3) and outdated knowledge of the languages by the translators.

The King James Version (1611). It is the most famous English

Bible of all time, still loved by many four hundred years later. It was both a literal and literary translation that probably will never be excelled.

It died of “old age,” including (1) outdated language, (2) an outdated text, (3) and outdated knowledge of the languages by the translators.

Revised Version (RV, 1881-1885). It was a long-overdue revision of the King James

but fell still-born from the press. It was an exclusively British project. It lacked the beauty and rhythm of the King James.

American Standard Version (1901). It was an American project whose text was very

similar to the RV and was no more successful. It translated “LORD” (YHWH) by the cumbersome and incorrect form “Jehovah.” The translation was literal but wooden and not very literary.

Revised Version (RV, 1881-1885). It was a long-overdue revision of the King James

but fell still-born from the press. It was an exclusively British project. It lacked the beauty and rhythm of the King James.

American Standard Version (1901). It was an American project whose text was very

similar to the RV and was no more successful. It translated “LORD” (YHWH) by the cumbersome and incorrect form “Jehovah.” The translation was literal but wooden and not very literary.

J. B. Philips New Testament (1947-1957). It was a pace-setting and appetite whetting paraphrase of the NT, paving the way for later paraphrases like Today’s English Version [The Good News Bible], The Living Bible, The New Living Translation, The Contemporary English Version, and The Message.

Philips’ translation broke into the market like a breath of fresh air for KJV weary readers before there was an RSV or NIV.

J. B. Philips New Testament (1947-1957). It was a pace-setting and appetite whetting paraphrase of the NT, paving the way for later paraphrases like Today’s English Version [The Good News Bible], The Living Bible, The New Living Translation, The Contemporary English Version, and The Message.

Philips’ translation broke into the market like a breath of fresh air for KJV weary readers before there was an RSV or NIV.

Revised Standard Version (NT-1946; OT 1952). It was a literal translation in the tradition of the King James Version but had more literary excellence than the RSV and ASV. It was rejected by most evangelicals because of its liberal biases, particularly in translating the Isaiah 7:14 virgin passage as “young maiden” and other OT texts (like Psa. 45:6). It has been replaced by The New Revised Standard Version (1989) which is ecumenical, liberal, gender inclusive, and supported by the National Council of Churches.

Revised Standard Version (NT-1946; OT 1952). It was a literal translation in the tradition of the King James Version but had more literary excellence than the RSV and ASV. It was rejected by most evangelicals because of its liberal biases, particularly in translating the Isaiah 7:14 virgin passage as “young maiden” and other OT texts (like Psa. 45:6). It has been replaced by The New Revised Standard Version (1989) which is ecumenical, liberal, gender inclusive, and supported by the National Council of Churches.

The New American Standard Version (NASB) (1971).

It resulted from an evangelical desire to have a modern translation they could trust. The result was a very accurate but rigidly literal study Bible but which lacked the beauty and majesty of the King James.

The New American Standard Version (NASB) (1971).

It resulted from an evangelical desire to have a modern translation they could trust. The result was a very accurate but rigidly literal study Bible but which lacked the beauty and majesty of the King James.

The Living Bible (1971).

It originated as a paraphrase written by Ken Taylor for his children. It lacked a proper scholarly basis and was revised by scholars and called The New Living Translation (NLT,1996).

The Living Bible (1971).

It originated as a paraphrase written by Ken Taylor for his children. It lacked a proper scholarly basis and was revised by scholars and called The New Living Translation (NLT,1996).

Today’s English Version (1976,TEV). Its NT is also known as Good News for Modern Man (1966). It is a thorough- going outgrowth of Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalent theory. It has gender inclusive language and avoids theological terms like atonement, redemption, and righteousness. It is expressed in colloquial contemporary American speech.

Today’s English Version (1976,TEV). Its NT is also known as Good News for Modern Man (1966). It is a thorough- going outgrowth of Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalent theory. It has gender inclusive language and avoids theological terms like atonement, redemption, and righteousness. It is expressed in colloquial contemporary American speech.

The New International Version (1978). It began with evangelical dissatisfaction with the RSV. Within a few years it replaced the KJV as the most widely used translation by Evangelicals. It is weighted on the dynamic equivalent side of the spectrum, though it retains a basic orthodox doctrinal orientation.

The New International Version (1978). It began with evangelical dissatisfaction with the RSV. Within a few years it replaced the KJV as the most widely used translation by Evangelicals. It is weighted on the dynamic equivalent side of the spectrum, though it retains a basic orthodox doctrinal orientation.

Today’s New International Version (2006, TNIV).

It was largely a failure in its attempt to gain widespread evangelical usage of a gender inclusive revision of the NIV.

It gratefully fell short of applying such gender inclusive language of God like “Our Heavenly Parent” or “Heavenly Mother”—perish the thought!

Today’s New International Version (2006, TNIV).

It was largely a failure in its attempt to gain widespread evangelical usage of a gender inclusive revision of the NIV.

It gratefully fell short of applying such gender inclusive language of God like “Our Heavenly Parent” or “Heavenly Mother”—perish the thought!

The New Living Translation (1996). It was based on a desire to refute charges that its forerunner, The Living Bible (1971), was unscholarly. It is firmly colloquial and committed to dynamic equivalence.

The New Living Translation (1996). It was based on a desire to refute charges that its forerunner, The Living Bible (1971), was unscholarly. It is firmly colloquial and committed to dynamic equivalence.

English Standard Version (2001) It is an evangelical revision of the

RSV which was a good literal and literary English translation, albeit it has liberal biases. As discontent grows over NIV bias in favor of dynamic equivalence, the ESV is growing among evangelicals.

English Standard Version (2001) It is an evangelical revision of the

RSV which was a good literal and literary English translation, albeit it has liberal biases. As discontent grows over NIV bias in favor of dynamic equivalence, the ESV is growing among evangelicals.

OutlineI. The History of English Translations

II. Two Different Theories of Translations

I. The History of English Translations

II. Two Different Theories of Translations

Bible Translations: Two Major Approaches

Dynamic (Functional) Equivalence Formal (Literal) Equiv. EquivalenceEssence of Thought-for-Thought Sentence-for-Sentence*Proper Setting Receptor Language Transmitter LanguageInterpretation Maximal Possible Minimal Necessary (Thematic Interpretation) (Linguistic Interpretation)Form/Content Separable Duality Inextricable UnityMeaning/ Meaning Expressed w/o Words No Meaning Ex. w/o Words Words (Thought Known Apart from Words) (Thought Known by Words)Locus of In the Mind In the TextMeaning Matching Ideas Only Ideas in Words and Word Classes Meaning/ Translations Does Both Trans. Does Only Meaning Significance Goal Reproduce Same Effect Reproduce Same Meaning Focus Response to the Message Form of the MessageTranslations NIV, and all paraphrases KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV

*As much as possible

Bible Translations: Two Major Approaches

Dynamic (Functional) Equivalence Formal (Literal) Equiv. EquivalenceEssence of Thought-for-Thought Sentence-for-Sentence*Proper Setting Receptor Language Transmitter LanguageInterpretation Maximal Possible Minimal Necessary (Thematic Interpretation) (Linguistic Interpretation)Form/Content Separable Duality Inextricable UnityMeaning/ Meaning Expressed w/o Words No Meaning Ex. w/o Words Words (Thought Known Apart from Words) (Thought Known by Words)Locus of In the Mind In the TextMeaning Matching Ideas Only Ideas in Words and Word Classes Meaning/ Translations Does Both Trans. Does Only Meaning Significance Goal Reproduce Same Effect Reproduce Same Meaning Focus Response to the Message Form of the MessageTranslations NIV, and all paraphrases KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV

*As much as possible

Reason Against the Dynamic EquivalentReason Against the Dynamic Equivalent1. It wrongly tries to translate significance (how it

applies) and not just meaning (what it means).2. It makes interpretive decision for the reader and

runs the risk of being wrong.3. It wrongly requires translators to resolve

ambiguities for the reader.4. It wrongly assumes that form is simply a vehicle to

get the content (message) across to the recipient.5. It wrongly encourages the translators to interpret

images and figures for the reader.6. It often leads to the loss of important repetitions

and emphases in the text.

1. It wrongly tries to translate significance (how it applies) and not just meaning (what it means).

2. It makes interpretive decision for the reader and runs the risk of being wrong.

3. It wrongly requires translators to resolve ambiguities for the reader.

4. It wrongly assumes that form is simply a vehicle to get the content (message) across to the recipient.

5. It wrongly encourages the translators to interpret images and figures for the reader.

6. It often leads to the loss of important repetitions and emphases in the text.

7. It wrongly assumes that meaning can best be understood in the context of the receptor language.

8. It wrongly assumes that Form/Content are a separable duality.

9. It wrongly assumes that meaning can be known without words (or other expressions).

10. It wrongly assumes that the author’s thought can be known without the text.

11. It wrongly assumes that the locus of meaning is in the author’s mind, rather than in his text.

12. It wrongly supposes its goal is to reproduce the same effect rather than the same meaning.

13. It wrongly focuses on the response to the message rather than on the form of the message.

7. It wrongly assumes that meaning can best be understood in the context of the receptor language.

8. It wrongly assumes that Form/Content are a separable duality.

9. It wrongly assumes that meaning can be known without words (or other expressions).

10. It wrongly assumes that the author’s thought can be known without the text.

11. It wrongly assumes that the locus of meaning is in the author’s mind, rather than in his text.

12. It wrongly supposes its goal is to reproduce the same effect rather than the same meaning.

13. It wrongly focuses on the response to the message rather than on the form of the message.

Accepted Rules for Published TextsAccepted Rules for Published Texts1. The author’s own words matter.2. Publishers and editors are not ordinarily allowed to

change the words of literary texts.3. Readers expect to receive the actual words of an

author.4. Readers need to be educated in the meaning of

difficult texts.5. Figurative language is not changed but is explained

in notes.6. Authors expect their own words to be unaltered by

publishers.Note: Why should not the Bible be treated with the

same respect (L. Ryken, The Word of God in English, 30).

1. The author’s own words matter.2. Publishers and editors are not ordinarily allowed to

change the words of literary texts.3. Readers expect to receive the actual words of an

author.4. Readers need to be educated in the meaning of

difficult texts.5. Figurative language is not changed but is explained

in notes.6. Authors expect their own words to be unaltered by

publishers.Note: Why should not the Bible be treated with the

same respect (L. Ryken, The Word of God in English, 30).

OutlineI. The History of English Translations

II. The Different Theories of Translations

III. The Criteria of a Good Translation

I. The History of English Translations

II. The Different Theories of Translations

III. The Criteria of a Good Translation

III. The Criteria of a Good TranslationIII. The Criteria of a Good TranslationA. It is accurate.B. It is clear.C. It is vivid.D. It is orthodox.E. It preserves ambiguities of the original.F. It is transparent to the original.G. It expects the best from its readers.H. It retains the poetic form of the original.I. It has beauty and dignity. (Adopted from Leland Ryken, The Word of God

in English, “Conclusion”)

A. It is accurate.B. It is clear.C. It is vivid.D. It is orthodox.E. It preserves ambiguities of the original.F. It is transparent to the original.G. It expects the best from its readers.H. It retains the poetic form of the original.I. It has beauty and dignity. (Adopted from Leland Ryken, The Word of God

in English, “Conclusion”)

OutlineI. The History of English Translations

II. The Different Theories of Translations

III. The Criteria of a Good Translation

IV. The Conclusion

I. The History of English Translations

II. The Different Theories of Translations

III. The Criteria of a Good Translation

IV. The Conclusion

IV. Some ConclusionsIV. Some Conclusions1. Dynamic equivalent Bibles are not good

translations (like the NIV).2. Paraphrases are not good translations (CEV,

NLT, The Message, The Good News Bible--TEV), but do have devotional value.

3. Good translations are literal translations (like NASB, NET).

4. Good translations are also literary translations (like the KJV, NKJV, ESV).

5. The NASB is the best study Bible.6. The best literal, literary, and orthodox

translations are the NKJV and ESV.

1. Dynamic equivalent Bibles are not good translations (like the NIV).

2. Paraphrases are not good translations (CEV, NLT, The Message, The Good News Bible--TEV), but do have devotional value.

3. Good translations are literal translations (like NASB, NET).

4. Good translations are also literary translations (like the KJV, NKJV, ESV).

5. The NASB is the best study Bible.6. The best literal, literary, and orthodox

translations are the NKJV and ESV.

Some Sad StatisticsSome Sad Statistics1. There have been over 1200 English version of the

Bible!

2. Of the 6912 spoken languages in the world today, 2251 [1/3] have no part of the Bible in them.

3. Only 429 language groups in the world have the whole Bible (www.wycliffe.org).

4. While we have strife over which of the numerous translations we have is best, much of the world is starving for one translation of the Bible.

1. There have been over 1200 English version of the Bible!

2. Of the 6912 spoken languages in the world today, 2251 [1/3] have no part of the Bible in them.

3. Only 429 language groups in the world have the whole Bible (www.wycliffe.org).

4. While we have strife over which of the numerous translations we have is best, much of the world is starving for one translation of the Bible.