From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:50:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>Tired of bickering with people, I've decided to try reading the Whole Thing
>(TM) in order to get some decent ammunition.  Which translation do you folks
>think meets the best combination of scholarly translation and readability?  
>
>For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that 
>"Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that makes
>a large difference).  Is there a translation that is sensitive to subtle 
>nuances like this?

I think on that score most everybody agrees that the King James
language is just wrong, and "murder" is the correct interpretation. 

In my own opinion the version depends on what you're aiming for.  I
find that the Today's English Version (TEV, aka "Good News Bible") is
the most readable, and would recommend it for a first attempt at the
Whole Thing, to get an idea of what's really there, in plain English.
For reference purposes I like to have several versions available for
comparison (quoting the TEV for "ammunition" would probably not be
appropriate).  I'm partial to the New English Bible, and also refer to
the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible.
(Hint: Bibles are easy to come by cheap at library/college/whatever
booksales).  The King James (Authorized Version) is worth having and
becoming familiar with, not so much because it's a great translation
by modern standards, or because it's very readable to most modern
English speakers, but because of the incalculable impact it has had on
the English language.  Because it's public domain, it's also available
via FTP on the net; having a bible online is useful, and some versions
come with access software.  For instance, if someone says "John
3:19-21 says it all", I can just type "bible john3:19-21" and see

 John3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the
 world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds
 were evil.  John3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light,
 neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
 John3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds
 may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Anyway; I append an interesting overview posted several years ago in
soc.religion.christian by Charles Hedrick, the moderator of that
group.  I know he often reads a.a. and if he has a more up-to-date
version of this write-up I'm sure he'll share it.  Remember, I didn't
write the quoted material.

----- Begin quoted material -----
[I collect Bible translations as sort of a hobby, so let me try to
summarize the ones I know.

"authorized" lineage
  AV, RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV
use concensus scholarship, "formal equivalency"
  NAB, NAB w/2nd ed. NT
  NIV
  RSV, RSV w/2nd ed. NT, NRSV
  JB, NJB
use concensus scholarship, "dynamic equivalency"
  TEV/Good News Bible
  NEB, REB
  Phillips
conservative scholarship, literal
  NASB
conservative scholarship, "format equivalency"
  NKJV
paraphrase
  LB



I. The "Authorized" lineage

Just as a matter of history, I'll start by summarizing the
translations that started with the Authorized Version ("King James").
(Note that AV and KJV mean the same thing.  I normally use AV, because
"King James" is really a nickname.)

RV - Revised Version - first major attempt to revise the AV, primarily
because of the great number of earlier manuscripts.  Great Britain.

ASV - American Standard Version - American equivalent of RV, done
shortly thereafter.  Contained some additional advances in
scholarship.  Tended to be more literal than AV.

RSV - Revised Standard Version, yet another American revision, done
primarily because of yet more manuscripts, including Dead Sea Scrolls.
Backed out of literalness of ASV, though still not a very free
translation.  Included scholarly views that were controversial at the
time (like translating Is 7:14 as young woman instead of virgin).  So
it was considered flamingly liberal at the time. Most of these
features are now present in evangelical translations.

NASB - New American Standard Bible - in some sense a conservative
reaction to RSV.  Tried to return to the supposed accuracy (i.e.
literalness) of ASV, backed out of some of the more controversial
positions of the RSV.  However did still make use of early manuscripts
(though not very aggressively).

NKJV - New King James - I have looked at the preface and a few
passages, but I don't own this.  Seems to be in opposition to the
textual scholarship of the previous revisions: it adopts the "majority
text".  See below.  Updates AV by removing "thee" and "thou", and
other things that are blatantly inappropriate in the 20th Cent., but
otherwise sticks very close to AV.  Presumably this means it is not as
literal as the AV or NASB.  Sees to be a proprietary translation, done
by Thomas Nelson.



II. Current translations

I have classified current translations alone two axes: their approach
on textual matters, and their translational theory.  By textual
matters I mean which Hebrew and Greek text they translate.  As I'm
sure you all know, we have many manuscripts.  Textual criticism is the
art of taking these manuscripts and figuring out what the original (if
any -- there are some scholars who think that the whole concept of
"original" may be misleading for the Gospels) was.  I am not competent
to comment on textual matters in the OT. The concensus view, among
both conservative and liberal NT scholars, is that the best text is
that represented by a small number of early manuscripts.  Early in the
20th Cent. this meant primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, two major
manuscripts from the early 4th Cent.  Since then we have found papyrii
going back as early as the mid 2nd Cent.  They have generally
supported the accuracy of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, though some
details have changed.  The payrii are not complete, but there are
enough of them that we have fairly good coverage from documents of
about 200 A.D.  The documents from before 200 are really fragmentary.
All of this is based on a fairly small number of early documents.  If
you simply count existing Greek manuscripts, they are primarily late,
and mostly follow texts that most scholars think have a number of
minor additions and other changes.  There is now a small group of
scholars who believe that this "majority text" is the best.  It very
similar to the text on which the AV is based.  At one point I thought
this view was completely crackpot, but it appears that some competent
people believe it.  It is still, shall we say, unusual.  I'm not the
best person to give detailed evidence.  But you should know whether
translations are based on concensus scholarship, i.e. use the latest
discoveries in early manuscripts, or stick with the majority text.

The other major axis is translational theory.  They are two major
ones: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.  Formal equivalence
says that we are trying to produce something whose form is as close to
the original as possible.  The same Greek word should be translated
consistently as the same English word where possible, so people can
see the form of the Greek by looking at the English.  This has some
similarity to a literal translation.  However the major formal
equivalence translations aren't really what I'd call literal.  They do
try to deal with idioms.  There are lots of Greek words that can have
many different effects, particularly prepositions and conjunctions.  A
Greek expert can normally tell which effect is meant in a given
passage.  Normally formal equivalence translations will choose
different English words to express this.  But still the intent is to
bring over the form as well as the content of the original.  Dynamic
equivalence says that the goal of translation is to transfer the same
message to the 20th Cent. reader that the original did to the original
reader.  The English sentence structure will often not be at all
similar to the original, since people say things differently in
English than in Greek.  Attempts will be made to bring out the
implications of figures of speech and other implications that were
part of the intended meaning but require special efforts to get across
in English.  This is still intended to be a translation.  It is not
supposed to add any interpretations by the translator.

A. The major formal equivalency translations

Let me start with the translations that I think are most widely
quoted.  These are all based on the formal equivalency method, and all
accept modern textual scholarship.  The first three are very similar.
They are

  NAB, NAB w/2nd ed. NT  (New American Bible) Catholic
  NIV  (New International Version) evangelical Protestant
  RSV, RSV w/2nd ed. NT, NRSV (Revised Standard Version) liberal Protestant

These translations all try to stick as close to the original as
possible while still being readable English.  None of them use "thee
and thou", or other obsolete words.  Because they all adopt pretty
much the same translational approach, and they are all based on modern
textual scholarship, they tend to be very similar.  You can find many
verses that are identical or nearly identical.  They are all fine
translations.  There are some minor differences.  First, I think you
can see slight differences in how literal they are.  In the NT at
least here's the order

  NAB 2nd edition, RSV - the most literal.  The original RSV took
	very strictly the instructions to stick with AV wording where
	possible
  NRSV - does a bit more to bring out the force of prepositions,
	conjunctions, and various expressions where literal translation
	would not do so
  NIV, NAB 1st edition - go just slightly further than NRSV (though
	in NAB 1st edition there are clear differences in different
	NT books)

Other unique features:
  NAB - the OT is uneven.  It was done over decades.  Gen was so
	far out of date that it had to be retranslated, so it ended
	up visibly newer, i.e. less literal and using more modern
	scholarship.  Even the NT tended to be a bit uneven.  The
	same expression would be translated differently in Mat. and 
	Luke.  The 2nd edition smooths this out, but makes it
	more literal.  The newer parts of the OT still tend to have
	a less literal feeling.  However this is still a competent
	translation.  For detailed study of the NT, if you want 
	something as close to the original words as possible but
	still want modern textual scholarship, the 2nd edition might be the
	best translation for you.  In the OT they sometimes rearrange
	the order of passages.  There's some theory that the
	originals got out of order.  I find it annoying.
  NIV - I find this more attractive the more I look at it (though it
	is not one of my default translations).  It tries to go as
	far towards readability as one can go while still showing
	you the form of the original.
  NRSV - still guided by the instruction to stick with AV wording
	where possible.  It's not a bad compromise between literalness
	and readability.  Its most visible feature is an avoidance
	of masculine gender where the original used masculine to
	mean everyone.  "brothers" will be translated "brothers and
	sisters", and "he" as "they" (with the whole passage turned
	plural).  This was not true of RSV and RSV 2nd edition.

The textual scholarship of all of these is very similar, but the NAB
2nd edition and NRSV are enough newer that there are a few places
where there are minor differences from NIV.  Most people won't notice
it. (NIV is based on the 2nd edition of the UBS Greek.  NAB 2nd
edition and NRSV are based on the 3rd. NRSV says they had access to
the 4th in draft.)

B. Jerusalem Bible

The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic translation, based on the French
Bible de Jerusalem.  The 2nd edition is known as the New Jerusalem
Bible.  As far as I can tell, no policies have changed in the NJB.  It
simply used some new manuscripts and has reexamined various decisions.
The Jerusalem Bible basically accepts all the same theories as the
three above, but comes out with a very different result.  Part of it
may be the difference between American and British practice.  But the
Jerusalem Bible tends to be a bit closer to a dynamic equivalence
translation.  It also tends to be slightly wordier.  The OT
scholarship tends to be more "aggressive".  I.e. they think the Hebrew
is corrupt and use an early Greek translation a bit more often than
the American translations (though RSV and NRSV go a bit further in
this direction than NAB and NIV).  They use the original names of God
in the OT.  "Yahweh" is used where other modern translations say "the
LORD".  Mostly the difference is simply stylistic.  I think they
simply did a better job of divorcing themselves from memories of the
AV.  This translation is well regarded by scholars, particularly in
the OT.  In my view the NT seems to be a bit uneven, i.e. to vary
between formal and dynamic equivalence.  It also shuffles parts of
the OT where they think the original is out of order.


C. Dynamic equivalence translations using concensus scholarship

In this section I am going to include
  TEV (Todays English Version), also known as Good News Bible,
	from the American Bible Society (a conservative Protestant
	organization that has managed to produce a liberal
	translation)
  NEB, REB (New English Bible, Revised English Bible) - done by
	a group of "mainline" churches in Great Britain.  REB
	is the 2nd edition of the NEB.  (Actually there were
	a few minor changes made to the NEB after initial publication,
	but it was never called 2nd edition.)
  Phillips, translation of the NT only, done by a well-known
	British scholar.  He was working on the OT, but died before
	finishing it.  (The joke went that it would be called
	Phillips' 66.)

Phillips is best thought of as a paraphrase, or maybe a very free
translation.  It was very popular for a few decades after the war.  It
was thought that he did the best job of presenting Paul's thought that
has ever been done.  Sometimes he got carried away and became a bit
too much of a paraphrase.  This was corrected in a 2nd edition.  A lot
of people still think this is the best translation to read simply to
get a sense of things.

My favorite is the TEV.  The big challenge in dynamic equivalence
translations is to be systematic.  You don't want to do a formal
equivalence translation and just now and then where you happen to have
a brilliant insight paraphrase one sentence.  Doing this gives a very
uneven feeling.  TEV has a remarkably consistent style, and does a
very good job of bringing out all of the implications implied in the
original but not obvious in a literal translation.  See particularly
Job, which is full of irony, much of which is not visible in other
translations.  Bibles have traditionally become a model of style.
Luther's translation did much to form modern German.  Similarly with
the AV for English.  The TEV is a model of simple, clear language.  I
read it before writing any major technical documents.  Some passages
in the prophets are rendered as prose, with the amount of parallelism
reduced.  This is not done for the more poetical parts, obviously.
They comment that things that come out as good, dignified prose look
silly as poetry in English, so they think translatiing this way does
more justice to the original.  I'd rather have poetry translated with
a bit more formal equivalence.

The NEB got rave reviews when it first came out.  It was the first
"official" translation to completely break with the AV tradition, and
also to adopt dynamic equivalence.  Of course "private" translations
such as Phillips and Goodspeed had done so before.  But this was an
official translation.  Like any dynamic equivalence translation, it
clarifies a lot of things.  However I do not like its style and I do
not trust its scholarship.  The style tends to be "high-falutin'", in
my view -- pseudo-literary.  Not King James, but too intentionally
dignified.  It is interesting to see how two translations with the
same theory can be as opposite as TEV and NEB.  Also, its dynamic
equivalence is not as consistently carried out as TEV's.  Its textual
criticism is idiosyncratic.  There are many words, particularly in the
OT, whose meaning isn't known.  But they tend to make guesses that are
rather different that most other scholars.  This translation is not
often quoted by scholars (though to be fair, neither is the TEV).  The
REB updates the scholarship a bit and reexamines some issues, but
doesn't change the basic approach very much.

D.  Conservative translations

Now we come to two translations that consciously reject concensus
scholarship.  I am not the best source of information on these,
because I don't own any of them.  But I have looked at them, and do
know why they were done.  The first is NASB.  At a time when
translations were becoming less literal and new manuscripts were being
used, the NASB translators believed it was appropriate to return to
the tradition of the ASV.  Thus it is rather literal, and it is rather
more cautious about using newly discovered manuscripts than the RSV
was.  It was intended to be more acceptable to evangelical Christians,
who at that time generally considered the RSV to be the work of the
devil.  (Since then people seem to have gotten over their shock, and
accepted just about everything the RSV did.  The NIV generally goes
further than the original RSV, and has been well received in the
evangelical community.)  I consider it so literal as to be nearly
unreadable.  If you really need this, you should be using an
interlinear edition (original language with a literal translation
written under it).  Note that although it was cautious about new
manuscripts, and rejected some of the more controversial decisions of
the RSV, it didn't really have a clear alternative theory to suggest
(as the NJKV seems to).

The NKJV is a more recent translation that seems to have similar
goals.  However this time the ideal is the AV, rather than the ASV.
The AV is probably a better starting point, because the AV really
didn't strike a bad balance between literalness and readability.  It
tends to be more literal than modern translations, but part of that is
that they simply didn't understand some idioms that we do now.
However to be fair the NASB was intended as a hardcore study Bible,
for people who really wanted to know exactly what the original said.
For that purpose, literalness is an asset.  I think NKJV is intended
for more general use.  The OT uses the Dead Sea Scrolls.  However the
NT is produced using the "majority text" theory, which I discussed
above.  (I still think this is a crackpot idea.)  The NKJV has gotten
rid of blatantly out of date language, including "thee" and verbs
ending in "est".  But they've tried to stick with the AV where
possible.

Finally, I should really mention the Living Bible.  This is frankly a
paraphrase.  I believe it was done from the RSV.  It has not gotten
good reviews by scholars.  I think you're better off with TEV.  But
I'm not the one to give a detailed review.

--clh]
----- End quoted material -----
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc