Talk:Bible translations

message: From the very start of the article "The New Testament was originally written in Greek." This is history, or Christian myth, or combination thereof ? Jesus Blows Goats 06:32, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not myth. There are overwhelming facts that the NT was written in Gk. BTW, you username stinks big time! -- iHoshie 03:34, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of the Church Fathers say that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew and only a Greek translation survives.  There's no hard evidence one way or another AFAIK. --Jim Henry | Talk 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original language of the NT 

message: I replaced "Hebrew Bible" with Tanakh since most Jewish people would find "Hebrew Bible" offensive. -- iHoshie 03:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanakh vs. Hebrew Bible 

message: At the moment there are 2 tables of English translations on different pages.  For all sorts of reasons, mainly keeping the two in sync, I think we should just have one.  Maybe then we should just have one chatty paragraph about all the different versions explaining the progression through major versions like KJV -> GNT -> NIV with a link to a full reference table giving for each translation:
- abbreviation (e.g. NIV)
- name (e.g. New International Version)
- date of publication (e.g. 1976)
- type of translation (literal, dynamic-equiv, paraphrase)
- number of copies sold (incl. date of info) => helps people see which are the major translations without being too subjective
:I've transferred the table to History of the English Bible since it only refers to English translations. --J. J. 06:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single table of English Bible translations 

message: :In 1901 Alexandros Pallis translated the gospels in Modern Greek. The publishing of the translation in a newspaper caused riots in Athens, known as Evangelika (Ευαγγελικά).
Was the translation called "Evangelika?"  Or were the riots?  -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The riots were called "Evangelika". The translation was kalled "New Testament According to the Vatican Manuscript".  -- pvasiliadis  07:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware of Greeks bearing Bibles. . . 

message: With the way the page is organized at present, I'm not sure where to put a link to an article entitled Versions of the Bible. --Jim Henry | Talk 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is odd that there wasn't a main External Links section.  It's now been added, as well as your link. --J. J. 06:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place for link to article on various versions and translations in general? 

message: the list of languages is altogether too unwieldy, especially if we're going to aim at completeness (2,700 entries...). I suggest we reduce it to a simple list (one line per language), exporting details to sub-articles (Czech Bible, Croatian Bible, etc.). dab (ᛏ) 15:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of languages

message: Could someone fix this dead link and put the sentence back in its proper place? The sentence reads:
Zondervan, one of the many Bible publishers has created this graphic showing where many popular English translations fall on the literal-to-paraphrase spectrum.
Thanx
--Dbabbitt 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Rust 

message: This article seems to me to touch rather too lightly on the immense controversy occasioned by various attempts at vernacular translations of the Bible in the west, and, inasmuch as it touches on it at all, reveals a western bias. The statement "During the Middle Ages, translation particularly of the Old Testament was discouraged" for instance applies only to the parts of Western and Central Europe that were part of Roman Christendom, while in the eastern churches the idea of vernacular translations of the bible appears not to have been controversial at all in the same period.
The article does skirt briefly upon the existence of early vernacular translations in the East (Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Syriac, etc.), but then never mentions them again.  Nor does it tie in the Slavonic translations of the Bible with what might be called a general eastern bias *towards* the local vernacular.  
In fact, I think that the article gives a misleading impression of a more or less homogeneous attitude towards translations at any given time in history, suggesting that across Christendom in general, vernaculars were allowed in antiquity, then merely "discouraged" (as opposed to being considered gravely heretical?) in the middle ages, and then more violently condemned only later on due to Catharism and then Protestantism.
Might an alternative approach be more appropriate? -- i.e.  one that makes explicit that the attitudes towards vernacular translations were, from an early date, different in different regions;  that in particular, the Roman churches might even be reasonably considered the "odd men out" relative to Christianity as a whole in their adherence exclusively to the vulgate in the Bible and Latin in church services even in areas where Romance languages were not spoken;  that the kind of controversies occasioned by Tyndale's or Luther's translations were alien to the culture of the Eastern Churches;  and that the Slavonic translations were part of a norm in the east dating back to the Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, and Greek churches. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJMG (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western-Christianity Bias?  Need for a separate article on the controversies of vernacular translations? 

message: When I recently expanded the introduction to mention translations performed for theological as well as linguistic reasons, I provided two examples:  classical (KJV) and modern (messianic).  Jayjg, in part of a continuing effort to minimize any mention of Messianic Judaism in WP, removed the latter, citing WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR.  Regarding the former, this is a perfectly valid example of a bible translation made for theological concerns.  The modernity of messianic bible translations provide a nice balance to the more historical KJV reference, informing the reader that these issues are relevant yet today.  Regarding the latter, what original research is being done?  The theological (vs linguistic) goal of messianic translations is self-evident—it's related to a messianic theology, not an XYZ language.  What exactly requires references? ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, the article has a cleanup tag. It is not 'ridiculous' to add material. Instead of removing, you should try to accommodate in the article body, in relation to notability. I agree the example isn't well-chosen, but it's at least an example, and if you think it is so terrible, you are free to add other, more notable ones. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I "promote" it all over because you do such a good job at removing every trace of it.  I'll agree with dab that it's probably not the best modern example for this illustration (it was the first modern example that came to my mind)...but the fact that you removed it without providing a better example tells me you are more interested in deleting MJ references than improving WP as a whole. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is true that there is a recent fad for creating a Bible translation taylored to your specific theological or philosophical outlook. In German, there is a recent ""Bible in PC language". Such attempts that put political or theological bias above the authority of the text have little to do with a bona fide "translation" and are essentially tools of propaganda or "roll your own religion" syncretism. dab (𒁳) 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  theological translations 

message: I removed:
* "Meaning-Based" translation
Because that's what "dynamic equivalence" is supposed to do.
I removed:
 The King James Version, for example, was a response to the Geneva Bible which was seen as divisive for rejecting terminology that was traditional within the Catholic church and for its controversial margin notes.
Because this is ill-conceived and incorrect: the KJV was a response to complaints in existing bibles, and commissioned since the King didn't want marginal  notes since some of those in the Geneva questioned his authority--it wasn't because the Geneva was critical of Roman Catholicism. The Anglican Church did, however, complain that the Geneva didn't used traditional terms (though it was technically more correct and clear, (ex: "baptism" which is taken from Greek means "immersion"), and so in order to appease the various movements within England, as well as the Church of England, the traditional terms (found in the Bishops Bible)were to be retained, though ironically the KJV is more than 80% the Geneva, so it's technically a revision and less a translation.
Infinitelink 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup and correction

message: I have read about many mistranslations in many parts of the bible from many different sources, so I expected to find an article about it here in Wikipedia, but I can not. Could you please tell me where?  ( I may be tempted to start an article on it, trying to find all the sources otherwise. In fact, I may feel tempted to make the article about all sorts of notable mis-translations.) DanielDemaret 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistranslations (and additions and typos) in different versions of the bible 

message: Any body interested? 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)
SV 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD's 

message: Hi, User:Dbachmann removed the link to Bible translations by language, pointing out that "this isn't so much a disambiguation notice but a "See also" one."
I respectfully disagree; it seems to me that not a few users would expect information on a sprectrum of translation languages in a "Bible translations" article, and that is where they would look for it first. In fact, until not long ago all the information the various languages appeared in this article (before it was moved to another location).
Bottom line, this is not black or white but a matter of personal judgement. Therefore, since the information was taken out of this article and the disambig notice has been there for a while with the agreement of those who did so, I have put it back for now. Depending on the consensus of editors who feel one way or the other, it can either be removed again or kept. I personally feel that it is useful as a disambig and therefore lean towards keeping it. Dovi 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link at top 

message: I have removed the following sentence: "William Tyndale was first jailed in 1535 for translating the Old Testament without permission, and a year later was strangled and burnt at the stake." as it is incorrect. Tyndale was not arrested and condemned for translating the Bible but on charges of heresy. From his prison he asked his jailor to return his Hebrew Bible and Hebrew dictionary to him so he could continue his translation (which would make no sense if he had been arrested for translating the Bible). Tradition says that his request was granted and he translated a good portion of the Bible while in prison in Vilvoorde.
From the Confutiones (Confutation of Tyndale's position) of Jacobus Latomus (one of the theologians from Leuven who questioned Tyndale in his prison), it is clear that translating the Bible was not an issue.
See: Gergely JUHÁSZ, & Paul ARBLASTER, "Can Translating the Bible Be Bad for Your Health? William Tyndale and the Falsification of Memory", in Johan LEEMANS, (ed.), More Than Memory. The Discours of Martyrdom and the Construction of Christian Identity in the History of Christianity, (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia 51) Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 315-340.
GJ1535 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyndale's arrest and execution

message: Several of the external links no longer work.  I'm not sure what the protocol is for fixing this sort of thing.
English Bible Translations List
Quick List of Bible Versions
English Bible Translation Comparison Chart
Thanks very much
Exceptinsects (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The protocol is WP:BB... just do it. (Well, perhaps give it a couple of days, just in case the external link had a temporary Internet connectivity glitch when you first looked.) Simply be bold (but careful) in your edits; in this case, removing the links, giving your rationale in the 'Edit summary'. If you are still unsure or lack confidence, reply here; then one of the rest of us can do it, and point you to our edit so you can see what we did. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Link rust (more)

message: How can the bible be the most translated book with 2000+ translations when Agatha Christie's been translated in 4000+ languages? Ren ✉ 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As best as I can tell, whilst Agatha  Christie's work has been translated into 56 languages, no single work has been translated into all 56 languages.  By contrast, the OT, NT and deuterocanonical material of the Bible has been translated into 123 languages.  Of the 2,393 languages that Wycliffe Bible translators estimate need a Bible translation, more than half do not yet have formal grammar and spelling rules. (Note in passing that those 2,393 languages represent a population of 200,000,000.) (WBTI 2008 stats) jonathon (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most translated? 

message: The Douay-Rheims Bible influenced the King James Version, and it has been the most prominent English translation among Roman Catholics, especially during the Counter-Reformation and among Traditionalist Catholics today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremia (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of the [[Douay-Rheims Bible]]? 

message: Due to the nature of this article being Bible translations, I would propose adding bibleshark.com to the external link section.  This is an online parallel bible and scripture lookup.  It has the ability to have multiple translations of a bible verse or book on the screen at the same time. Heathdbrown (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New External Link Addition(s) 

message: Sometimes a distinction is made between version and translation. Version being used for ancient translations, translation for mediaeval and modern ones. Now, this distinction seems more often than not ignored, and the two words are used interchangably. But I am surprised this distinction isn't mentinoed in the article. From a scholarly perspective, the study of ancient translations is a very different enterprise than the study of later ones, with different expectations. Scholars study ancient versions because they believe it can shed extra light on the original texts - they can record variants of the original language text which may no longer be extant, and can provide evidence for how the text was understood in a time much closer to its original authorship than our own. No one expects the study of modern translations to shed light on the ancient texts at a scholarly level - although certainly the history of e.g. English language translations is interesting for the light it sheds on the evolution of the English language, and the evolution of theological thought and translation philosophies in the English-speaking world. So, this is a very important distinction (versions v.s. translations), which this article in its current state fails to address. --121.220.103.165 (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version vs. Translation 

message: Isn't a little vague to have this article begin with the statement that the Bible has been translated into "many languagues"? Elsewhere in Wikipedia we can read that the complete Bible has been translated into 457 languages as of May 2011 (although of course, portions of the Bible have been translated into many more languages)  - could we have the reference to the figure of 457 at the start of this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A vague statement

message: The statement "A Hungarian Hussite Bible appeared in the mid 15th century..." is probably false. As far as I know, hussite Bible was written in Czech.--Qasinka (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Hungarian Hussite Bible?

message: Why are the targums put in first if the LXX is the most ancient attested translation ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.164.231.128 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Targums vs LXX 

message: I have seen claims in a couple different places that the Bible was translated into Ancient Thracian. That translation probably doesn't exist anymore. But in any case should we include some of the more obscure ancient translation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.19 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Translation List Addition 

message: At this site: wordproject.org.
108.18.136.147 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  audio as well as text 

message: Someone appears to have copied extensively from Glen Butterfield's Bible Unity (2013) in the Wikipedia "article" on Bible Translations. 
I have taken the liberty of inserting the few missing words that had been omitted from the passages copied from Butterfield, enclosed the copied text in inverted commas and provided clear references in preference to the rather bogus information in "ref" tags that might, to a cynical eye, appear not as "references" to the real source of the plagiarised text, but are intended to lead the reader to think the plagiarist has, in fact, paraphrased and summarised the quite different material in the reference provided. 
82.30.20.170 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That information was added in 2009 by . Unless there is an older version of that book published before 2013, Butterfield must have stolen it from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism in Bible Translations entry 

message: :Wiki-editors,
:I have moved, mistake of mine only, the article "New Revised Standard Version" to "Bíblia (Nova versão padrão revisada)", while I was proceeding translation for portuguese.
:Please, can anyone undo this mistake move?
:Forgive me. This was not vandalism.
:Thanks.
:Aainitio (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need your help... 

message: I have Bibles in several international translations (German, French, Iroquois, Hindi, Chinese, Spanish, Sinhalese, etc).
Would there be interest in a photo of said collection for this article?
--Jason Johnson913 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Jason, yes, we would be most interested in getting more photos not only for this page, but also for each of the Bible language pages that are linked from the List of Bible translations by language page. I recently volunteered to make that page and the major Bible language pages be translated into Japanese, and also have donated about ten photos to the Media Commons in the past. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: The article reads, "Jerome based his Latin Vulgate translation on the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the Masoretic text), and on the Greek text for the deuterocanonical books."
However, Christopher de Hamel in "The Book: A History of the Bible" [Phaidon Press] states that Jerome translated only the short books of Tobit and Judith from the Greek; the remaining books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 3 and 4 Esdras and 1 and 2 Maccabees were "rejected by Jerome; supplied unchanged from the Old Latin." [Pg 22-24].
I lack the know how to properly correct this, but it certainly deserves correcting.
--Jason Johnson913 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's explained a little bit better further below ("Jerome began by revising the earlier Latin translations, but ended by going back to the original Greek, bypassing all translations, and going back to the original Hebrew wherever he could instead of the Septuagint"). A better explanation is in the article about the earlier Latin translations, the Vetus Latina, or the "old Latin" Bible. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerome and the deuterocanonicals 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Versions of the Bible and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Versions of the Bible until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Versions of the Bible" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Version of the bible and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Version of the bible until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Version of the bible" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Bible versions and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Bible versions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bible versions" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Bible version and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Bible version until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bible version" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Bible, Versions of the and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Bible, Versions of the until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bible, Versions of the" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Editions of the Bible and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Editions of the Bible until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Editions of the Bible" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Textual differences in the Bible and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Textual differences in the Bible until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Textual differences in the Bible" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]