In the previous part of this article, I have given you a brief history and overview of the various source
documents for the Old and New Testaments that are used in most modern Bible translations.
In the second part of this two-part article, I will now attempt to give you an
overview of the different kinds of Bible translations, together with brief
descriptions of 10 of the most popular versions of the Bible in English today.
As you all know, the original
languages of the Bible are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, so unless you are able to
understand any of these languages in the form it was used at least 2,000 years
ago, you’ll definitely be reading a translated version of the Bible regardless
of what language it is in. Bibles (and for that matter, any translated
document) can generally be divided into three categories according to the
method of translation applied: formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence and
paraphrase.
Formal equivalence, which is also known as literal equivalence or
word-for-word translation, involves the translation of the meanings of
individual words in their more or less exact syntactic sequence. In other words, it involves a more
literal rendering of the original text into its target (translated) language.
Formal equivalence places emphasis not only on translating each individual word
according to its lexical meaning, but also on reconstructing sentences in the
target language to resemble the syntax (arrangement of words in a sentence) in
the source language as closely as possible. Of course, the larger the
difference between the source language and the target language, the more
difficult it would be for a purely literal translation to be made while still
allowing the translations to sound natural to a native speaker of the target
language.
Dynamic equivalence, which is also known as functional equivalence,
involves a sense-for-sense translation, or a translation of the meanings of
phrases or whole sentences into a target language. In other words, it involves transferring only
the meanings of phrases or sentences from the source language into the target
language, often by reconstructing the sentences in the target language in a way
that would sound more natural for a native speaker of that language. It is also
sometimes defined as a method of translation whereby the effect of the
translated text on native speakers of the target language would roughly be the
same as the effect of the original text on native speakers of the source
language.
To illustrate the difference between
the two, let me give you a simple example. Consider the following sentence in
Chinese…
你好。我的名字叫李鸿。(Nĭ hǎo.
Wǒ de míngzì jiào Lĭ Hóng.)
…with each of the above words having
the following lexical meanings:
你 (nĭ) = you
好 (hǎo) = good / well
我 (wǒ)= my
的 (de) = (particle indicating
possession)
名字 (míngzì)
= name
叫 (jiào)
= call
李鸿 (Lĭ Hóng)
= Li Hong
If one were to strictly apply a
formal equivalence approach in translating the above sentence into English, it
would probably sound something like this…
Are you well? My name is called Li Hong.
…which clearly doesn’t sound natural
for a native English speaker, due to the vast syntactic and lexical differences
between Mandarin Chinese and English. In this case (as is the case for many
Chinese-English translations as well), dynamic equivalence would be a better
approach to translating the above sample sentence. With a dynamic equivalence
approach, it would sound like this:
How are you? My name is Li Hong. OR How
are you? I’m Li Hong.
Having said that, let’s shift our
focus to examples from the Bible itself. Both formal equivalence and dynamic
equivalence have their respective strengths and weaknesses. While formal
equivalence emphasizes fidelity to the original text in its translations, it
often does so at the expense of how natural, smooth or easily understood the
translated sentences are to readers in the target language. Dynamic equivalence
helps overcome this problem, but at the expense of potential alterations and
biasness in meaning when translating from the source language, as it involves
the translator first reading and interpreting the source text before conveying
its meaning based on his/her interpretations by rewriting the sentences in the
target language.
Consider the text of 1 Peter 1:13
from the New King James Version (NKJV), a formal equivalence Bible, and from
the New International Version (NIV), a dynamic equivalence Bible:
“Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest
your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation
of Jesus Christ.” –
1 Peter 1:13 NKJV
“Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your
hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his
coming.” – 1 Peter
1:13 NIV
The metaphoric expression gird up the loins of your mind in the
NKJV may not sound natural for a native English speaker at first glance, but
the NIV gives a simpler and clearer translation by rendering it as with minds that are alert. Consider this
second example from the New American Standard Bible (NASB), another formal
equivalence Bible, and from the New Living Translation (NLT), a dynamic
equivalence Bible:
“If an alien sojourns among you and observes the Passover to the LORD,
according to the statute of the Passover and according to its ordinance, so he
shall do; you shall have one statute, both for the alien and for the native of
the land.” –
Numbers 9:14 NASB
“And if foreigners living among you want to celebrate the Passover to
the LORD, they must follow these same decrees and regulations. The same laws
apply both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you.” – Numbers 9:14 NLT
Clearly one can see that the NASB’s
rendering of the verse sounds more erudite and perhaps somewhat difficult to
understand because of its choice and arrangement of words. While the terms alien, sojourn, statute and ordinance may be legitimate English
words, they are admittedly not in common use in everyday language. The NLT’s
rendering of the verse makes it simpler for one to comprehend the meaning and
intent behind the verse. These are perhaps examples of how a dynamic
equivalence Bible may be superior to a formal equivalence one for smoother
reading and easier comprehension.
Now, if a dynamic equivalence Bible
ensures smoother reading and understanding, some may then ask if there’s any
use of reading a formal equivalence Bible at all. Consider the following
passages from the NIV and the NKJV:
“That night God came to Balaam and said, “Since these men have come
to summon you, go with them, but do only what I tell you.” Balaam got up in
the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials. But God
was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to
oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with
him. – Numbers
22:20-22 NIV
“And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, “If the men come to
call you, rise and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you –
that you shall do.” So Balaam rose in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went
with the princes of Moab. Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the
Angel of the LORD took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he
was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. – Numbers 22:20-22 NKJV
If one were to read the NIV’s
dynamic translation of the above passage, one might be left wondering as to why
God got angry with Balaam when all he did was to go with the Moabite officials
as per God’s own command. However, the NKJV’s formal/literal translation, which
is closer in meaning to the original Hebrew text, shows that there is no such
confusion in the original Hebrew text after all. The conjunction if shows that God’s command to Balaam to
allow him to go with the Moabite princes was conditional upon them coming to
call on Balaam first, but God’s anger was due to the fact that Balaam went with
the princes on his own accord without even waiting for them to come and call on
him. This conditional permission from God was lost in translation in a dynamic
equivalence Bible such as the NIV.
Consider the following excerpts from
the NASB, the NIV and the NLT as well:
“For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men
condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both
to angels and to men.” – 1 Corinthians 4:9 NASB
“For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the
end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have
been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human
beings.” – 1
Corinthians 4:9 NIV
“Instead, I sometimes think God has put us apostles on display, like
prisoners of war at the end of a victor’s parade, condemned to die. We have
become a spectacle to the entire world – to people and angels alike.” – 1 Corinthians 4:9 NLT
While this may not be much of a
doctrinal issue, it does illustrate an example of how personal interpretation
on the part of the translator may influence the outcome of a dynamic
translation, even if just slightly. The original Greek text, as reflected by
the NASB’s formal/literal translation, makes no specific indication of what is
meant by the phrases exhibited last of
all and men condemned to death,
probably because their meaning was implicitly understood by the readers of
Apostle Paul’s time. The translator of the NIV assumed that this was meant to
illustrate the context of how prisoners during the Roman era who were condemned
to public execution in the arena were placed at the end of a procession prior
to their execution. The translator of the NLT, on the other hand, made the
assumption that this was a specific reference to how victorious Roman armies
would display their prisoners of war to the public at the end of a procession
before executing them. Due to cultural and historical differences, the
translators of the NIV and the NLT thought it best to include a few extra words
in their respective dynamic translations in order to clarify to modern English
readers what they thought was implied by the aforementioned phrases.
One may ask, “Which is the best
Bible to read?” The answer to that, in all honesty, isn’t clear-cut, as it
really depends a lot on personal preference and familiarity. For one who
prefers simplicity and ease of reading, a dynamic equivalence Bible would be
the best choice, but for one who prefers reading something that is as close as
possible to the original texts, a formal equivalence Bible would be the way to
go. It is my opinion that regardless of whether one chooses a formal or dynamic
equivalence Bible, both are equally valid for studying, teaching and preaching,
as multiple revisions over the years have ensured that most of these Bibles in
the market are as accurate as possible in representing the original texts.
However, I would personally recommend anyone to read at least one version of
each so as to compare for themselves any differences in the wordings and
expressions.
The third category of translations,
which I haven’t mentioned until now, is paraphrase. Paraphrase involves restating the meaning of the original text using
other words, sometimes even including clarifications of the original text.
It can be seen as the most liberal method of translating texts, and as such has
a higher risk of distorting the original meaning and intent of the text. Take
for example the following verse from the NKJV (formal equivalence), NIV
(dynamic equivalence), NLT (dynamic equivalence) and The Message (MSG)
(paraphrase):
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” – Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can
boast.” – Ephesians
2:8-9 NIV
“God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit
for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things
we have done, so none of us can boast about it.” – Ephesians 2:8-9 NLT
“Saving is all his idea, and all his work. All we do is trust him enough
to let him do it. It’s God’s gift from start to finish! We don’t play the major
role. If we did, we’d probably go around bragging that we’d done the whole
thing!” – Ephesians
2:8-9 MSG
While some may argue that
paraphrased Bibles may be a good read for young readers, non-Christians and new
Christians who aren’t too familiar with biblical jargon or who may find the
typical Bible too dry for their taste, I would personally not recommend such
Bibles for Bible studies and preaching, especially for more seasoned
Christians. They simply provide too much room for misinterpretations and
distortions of the meaning and intent behind the original texts. That is,
however, my personal opinion, and it is still worth making a point that most of
the commonly used paraphrased Bibles out there at the very least do not deviate
from mainstream Christian teaching.
Having said all these, let us now
look at 10 of the most popular versions of the English Bible today. Note that
these Bibles are not arranged in any particular order.
King James Version Bible printed in 1612
1) King James Version (KJV)
Type of
translation: Formal equivalence
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Ben Hayyim’s Mikraot
Gedolot) with Septuagint and Latin Vulgate influence
New Testament
source texts: Textus Receptus (Majority Text) with Latin Vulgate influence
Other primary
source texts: None
Brief
history:
The KJV was a
Bible commissioned by King James I of England (1567 – 1625) in 1604 in response
to petitions made by the Puritans. The Puritans were a faction of Protestants
in 16th and 17th century England whose objective was to
purify the Church of England of what they perceived as Roman Catholic
influence. When King James I convened the Hampton Court Conference in January
1604, the Puritans raised the issue of perceived mistranslations that they
identified in earlier English Bible versions, subsequently requesting that a
new translation be produced in the English vernacular for the benefit of the
masses.
47 scholars
from the Church of England were commissioned with the task of translation, and
the first official copies were printed in 1611 by Robert Barker (d. 1645), the
King’s Printer. It soon became known as the Authorized Version due to the fact
that it was made the sole version that was authorized for use in the Church of
England. Several revisions were made after that, and by the 18th
century the KJV became virtually unchallenged as the only accepted standard of
the English Bible. Its popularity remains till today, with even some
fundamentalists perceiving it as the only ‘uncorrupted’ version of the Bible.
Personal
comments:
The KJV is
undoubtedly the oldest English Bible that is still of widespread relevance to
this day. Due to the evolution of the English language, a significant portion
of the KJV’s vocabulary and sentence structures are archaic by today’s
standards and may be difficult to comprehend, particularly for someone
unfamiliar with medieval-style English. It does, however, have a reputation for
being one of the most linguistically beautiful works of English literature, at
the same time not compromising on its fidelity to its source texts. The KJV,
along with its offspring Bible, the NKJV, are virtually the only two modern
English Bible versions to utilize the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) as the source
text for the New Testament (see previous part of this article for a description
of the Majority Text and its shortcomings).
2) New King James Version (NKJV)
Type of
translation: Formal equivalence
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Ben Hayyim’s Mikraot Gedolot) with Septuagint influence
New Testament
source texts: Textus Receptus (Majority Text) with Latin Vulgate influence
Other primary
source texts: King James Version
Brief
history:
The
translation of the NKJV was a brainchild of Arthur Farstad (1935 – 1998), a
prominent Bible scholar from the United States. One of the main aims of the
translation was to update the archaic grammar and vocabulary of the King James
Version while preserving its literary beauty and classic style. Plans for the
translation of the NKJV were conceived and laid out in 1975 with two meetings
in Nashville and Chicago respectively, which were attended by about 130
biblical scholars, theologians and pastors who believed in the supremacy of the
Textus Receptus. The complete New Testament was published in 1979, while the
full version of the Bible was published in 1982. Both the NKJV and its parent
Bible, the KJV, are virtually the only two modern versions of the English Bible
that utilize the Textus Receptus as a source text for the New Testament.
Personal
comments:
Compared to
the KJV, the NKJV is undoubtedly a much more readable version of the Bible for
most readers, as it utilizes modern English. The translators of the NKJV made
every effort to remove archaic words (e.g. ye, thy, thine etc.) and spellings
(e.g. speaketh). Despite its updated language, the NKJV is fairly successful in
preserving some of the classic literary beauty of the KJV, particularly in the
poetic books of the Bible such as the Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. It is
a fairly accurate rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, although
some may still find certain parts of the NKJV difficult to read because of its
choice of words that are more literary in nature. Since its initial
publication, the NKJV has become one of the best-selling and most widely read
versions of the English Bible worldwide.
3) New International Version (NIV)
Type of
translation: Dynamic equivalence
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia), Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Latin
Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, Septuagint and others
New Testament
source texts: Novum Testamentum Graece
(Minority Text)
Other primary
source texts: None
Brief
history:
The NIV
traces its roots back to 1956 with the formation of a small committee in the
United States to study the possibility of producing a new translation that
utilizes the common language of the American people. However, the translation
project was only officially started in 1965 after a meeting at Trinity
Christian College in Illinois that involved the Christian Reformed Church,
National Association of Evangelicals and several international Bible scholars.
The New York Bible Society, now known as Biblica, was given the task of doing
the translation. The New Testament was completed and published in 1973, while
the entire Bible was published in 1978. Two major updated versions were
published in 1984 and 2011, which took into account archaeological and
scholarly studies conducted on more recently discovered manuscripts as well.
The core
translation group comprised fifteen Bible scholars, and the entire translation
took about ten years and a team of over 100 scholars to complete. Scholars and
translators involved consisted of those from different English-speaking nations
around the world and from a variety of Protestant denominations. Translators
sought to take into account even the most recent archaeological and linguistic
discoveries in their translations, and familiar phrases or spellings from other
traditional translations were retained as much as was possible.
Personal
comments:
The NIV is
undeniably one of the most popular and best-selling translations of the Bible
in English until today. A notable point about this translation is that it
involved scholars and translators from a variety of Protestant denominations
hailing from different English-speaking nations around the globe, thus enabling
the production of a truly international and universal English translation that
is not biased towards any regional dialect or denomination. Another thing worth
noting about the NIV is the fact that unlike most other English Bible versions,
the translators of the NIV used a larger variety of source texts particularly
for the Old Testament, making comparisons and cross-references between them
throughout the translation process. One of these, the Samaritan Pentateuch, is
in fact believed to be the oldest available copy of any part of the Bible (more
about it has been covered in Part 1 of this article). I personally feel that this
is important because it helps the translators to render a translation that is
as close as possible to the original manuscripts that have been lost to
posterity.
Although
being a dynamic equivalence Bible, the translators of the NIV have done an
excellent job for the most part in accurately rendering the meanings of the
original texts. As a result, the NIV provides a highly readable text written in
fairly elementary modern English without compromising on the accuracy of its
translations.
Type of
translation: Dynamic equivalence
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia), Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Samaritan
Pentateuch, Syriac Peshitta and Latin Vulgate
New Testament
source texts: Novum Testamentum Graece
(Minority Text)
Other primary
source texts: The Living Bible
Brief
history:
In his
routine family devotions, prominent American Christian author Kenneth N. Taylor
(1917 – 2005) often found that his children had difficulties understanding the
language used in the KJV and the Revised Standard Version (RSV), and that
inspired him to produce simple paraphrases of the Bible verses for each day’s
devotions. His efforts led to the publication of several picture books with
Bible paraphrases, such as The Bible in
Pictures for Little Eyes and Stories
for the Children’s Hour, which were aimed at helping children understand
the Bible better.
With the
success of these books, Taylor embarked on a more ambitious project – to
produce a Bible translation in a paraphrased and easy-to-read modern language.
Using the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 as his primary base text
along with comparisons with other Bible versions, Taylor published The Living
Bible in 1971, which was well-received in many Evangelical circles especially
youth-oriented groups.
Despite its
success particularly in youth ministries, there were criticisms from more
conservative groups regarding its accuracy and fidelity to the original texts.
The first major revision was undertaken from 1989 to 1996 with about 90
translators involved, after which the first edition of the NLT was published.
Although intended to be nothing more than a revision of The Living Bible, the
project soon evolved into a new English translation using the original Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek texts. Subsequent revisions in 2004, 2007 and 2013 further readjusted
the language employed in order to conform more accurately to the meanings in
the original texts.
Personal
comments:
The NLT is
arguably one of the most popular Bible translations particularly for
youth-oriented groups and ministries due to its ease of reading and the
simplicity of the language used. Although it is a dynamic equivalence Bible, it
may sometimes employ paraphrases or insert additional explanatory phrases in
some of its passages in order to further explain obscure words and phrases. It
is because of this that some may tend to label the NLT a semi-paraphrase Bible.
Nevertheless, compared to its predecessor, The Living Bible, the newer editions
of the NLT conform much more closely to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
texts, at the same time maintains a considerable degree of simplicity in the
language it employs.
5) New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Type of
translation: Formal equivalence
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia) with Septuagint influence, Dead Sea Scrolls
New Testament
source texts: Novum Testamentum Graece
(Minority Text)
Other primary
source texts: American Standard Version
Brief
history:
Efforts to
revise the Authorized Version (KJV) were begun in 1870 by about 50 scholars
from various denominations in Britain, with the involvement of American
scholars from several denominations via correspondence. Work in earnest began
in 1872, and by 1885, both the Old and New Testaments of a new version called
the Revised Version (RV) were published. An agreement was in place between the
British and American teams that the American team would not publish their
version of the RV for 14 years. When the agreement lapsed in 1901, the RV was
published in America as the Revised
Version, Standard American Edition, but was more commonly known to many as
the American Standard Version (ASV).
In 1959,
Dewey Lockman, who co-founded the Lockman Foundation with his wife, saw the
need for a Bible translation that would be readable in the English language of
that time, but more importantly, would not compromise any accuracy in the
translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. A new project
thus began with a committee of American pastors and scholars from a variety of
Protestant denominational backgrounds. The committee decided upon using the
original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts (as stated above) as their primary
source text, at the same time incorporating new information from the Dead Sea
Scrolls that were not discovered until the turn of the century. The translation
project also utilized the ASV as one of its primary references, thus making it
a revision of the ASV in a sense. Additionally, one of the main distinctive
features about this translation project was the committee’s undivided
commitment to a strictly literal translation from the original texts, so long
as grammatical correctness and understandability could be maintained. The
complete NASB was thus published in 1971, with minor revisions in the following
years and in 1995.
Personal
comments:
One of the
greatest perceived strengths of the NASB is the literalness of its translations
from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Among all modern English Bible
versions, the NASB is often recognized as one of the most literal translations
that maintains a high degree of fidelity to the original texts. This, of
course, comes at the price of its readability and simplicity of literary style,
whereby some of its verses are rendered in ways that may sound peculiar to the
average reader. Nonetheless, I believe this would be one of the best versions
for those who would prefer a literal translation that is as close as possible
to the original texts, provided s/he also has a good command of the English
language.
6) New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Type of
translation: Formal equivalence
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia) with Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls influence
New Testament
source texts: Novum Testamentum Graece
(Minority Text)
Other primary
source texts: Revised Standard Version
Brief
history:
As mentioned
above in the section on the NASB (Bible No. 5), the ASV that was published in
1901 in America was the result of a major revision of the KJV by both British
and American scholars. Although it was intended to be a revision of the
Authorized Version (KJV), the ASV did not prove to be popular enough to
displace the KJV in most Protestant Christian circles. The International
Council of Religious Education, now known as the National Council of Churches
in the USA, acquired the copyright to the ASV in 1928. A study of the ASV was
suggested and briefly undertaken by the council from 1930 to 1932, but due to
the Great Depression, it was not until 1937 that the council decided upon
revising the ASV.
A panel of 32
scholars was set up in America for this purpose, and although there were plans
to set up a British committee as was the case for the RV and the ASV, they
never took off due to World War II. The Old and New Testaments of the new
version, known as the Revised Standard Version (RSV), were published by 1952,
and a celebratory rally was held in Washington D.C. on St. Jerome’s Day (September
30, 1952) whereby it was released to the general public. The RSV soon became so
widely accepted in Protestant circles that it became dubbed the first Bible
version to have successfully posed a serious challenge to the popularity of the
Authorized Version (KJV). Subsequent translations of the
Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books were done and added to later editions for the
use of Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
The RSV
underwent another major revision several decades later under the National Council
of Churches. A translation committee was formed for this purpose, comprising
scholars and representatives from Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian
groups as well as Jewish representation responsible for the Old Testament. This
revised version was meant to incorporate findings from more recent
archaeological discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and to update the
language used in the RSV. The NRSV was thus published in 1989, with three
editions: a Protestant edition that includes only the Old and New Testaments of
the Protestant canon; a Roman Catholic edition that includes the Catholic
Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) as well; and The Common Bible that includes
all books of the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox canons.
Personal
comments:
The NRSV is
one of the few versions of the English Bible that is a product of a joint
ecumenical effort (i.e. representing different denominations within
Christianity), since its translation involved representatives from Protestant,
Catholic and Orthodox Christian groups. Being a formal equivalence Bible, it
provides a fairly accurate translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and
Greek texts in readable modern English. While the RSV was historically
criticized by fundamental and even some evangelical Christian groups for its
controversial translations and perceived doctrinal tampering, the NRSV
translators did a pretty good job in repairing them and updating the RSV’s
archaic language. For readers who may be seeking a Bible version that is
potentially unbiased towards any major Christian denomination, or who may also
be looking to read the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) in modern, readable
English, the NRSV is perhaps the best version for that.
7) English Standard Version (ESV)
Type of
translation: Formal equivalence
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia) with Septuagint influence
New Testament
source texts: Novum Testamentum Graece
(Minority Text)
Other primary
source texts: Revised Standard Version
Brief
history:
Translation
of the ESV began in the early 1990s following a perceived need by many
evangelical Christians for a new and more literal translation of the Bible.
Under the leadership of Dr. Lane T. Dennis, a translation committee was formed,
and permission was sought from the National Council of Churches to use the 1971
version of the RSV as the primary textual basis for the ESV. Evangelical Bible
scholars from around the world contributed to its translation, and a 12-member
Translation Oversight Committee was responsible for the revision and final
review of the work. The ESV was finally published in 2001, and has since then
been widely used in countless churches and ministries worldwide.
Personal
comments:
The ESV is a
fairly literal translation of the Bible’s original texts, and its textual
structure is largely derived from the 1971 version of the RSV, hence rendering
it a somewhat updated version of the RSV. Despite being a literal translation,
the language it employs is fairly contemporary and clear to any reader.
Nonetheless, having been translated by a group of translators deemed socially
conservative, the ESV employs a more conservative approach when it comes to
certain aspects of translation such as Greek gender-specific terms. Having said
these, the ESV is undoubtedly one of the most widely utilized versions of the
English Bible in many international ministries until today.
8) Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Type of
translation: Dynamic equivalence / “Optimal equivalence” (see Personal
comments)
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia) with Septuagint influence
New Testament
source texts: Novum Testamentum Graece
(Minority Text)
Other primary
source texts: None
Brief
history:
The origins
of the HCSB can be traced back as early as 1984, when Arthur Farstad, who was
the general editor for the NKJV, embarked on a new and independent translation
project with Edwin Blum, both of whom were employed as faculty members at the
Dallas Theological Seminary at that time. It was Farstad’s intention to produce
a direct modern English translation of the New Testament based on the Majority
Text which he had edited and published in 1982.
In 1998,
Broadman & Holman, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention,
was seeking to purchase the copyright of several existing Bible versions in
order to be used in their publications. After several unsuccessful attempts,
Broadman & Holman expressed their interest in financing and acquiring the
copyright to Farstad’s unfinished project. Although the company required that
the New Testament translation be made from the Novum Testamentum Graece (Minority Text), Farstad insisted on using
the Majority Text instead, and an agreement was reached in which a parallel
translation would be made. Nevertheless, Farstad’s unexpected passing several
months into the agreement meant that the editorial leadership was transferred
into Blum’s hands, and plans to include a parallel translation involving the
Majority Text were dropped altogether. A large team of translators and editors
working with Broadman & Holman was recruited into the project, and a new
translation based solely on the Novum
Testamentum Graece (Minority Text) for the New Testament was produced. The
completed translation of the New Testament was published in 1999, and the
complete Bible was published in 2004.
Personal
comments:
To be honest,
I have not read the HCSB before, but from what I have gathered from other
sources, the translators employed a balance between word-for-word (formal
equivalence) and sense-for-sense (dynamic equivalence) translation in producing
the HCSB. This balance is what they called “optimal equivalence,” in which they
extensively scrutinized the original texts in order to determine their original
meanings and intentions before rendering them into a readable text in
contemporary English. The translators involved in producing the HCSB were
predominantly Baptists, and Broadman & Holman itself is the publishing arm
of the Southern Baptist Convention, which makes it possible that the HCSB may
have been influenced by denominational biases, although some commentaries
indicate that such biases have been largely avoided.
Type of
translation: Dynamic equivalence
Old Testament
source texts: Masoretic Text (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Biblia
Hebraica Quinta), Hebrew University Bible Project, Dead Sea Scrolls,
Septuagint and others
New Testament
source texts: Novum Testamentum Graece
(Minority Text)
Other primary
source texts: None
Brief
history:
The
translation of the CEB was a joint effort sponsored by several denominational
publishing companies in the United States. Under an umbrella group known as the
Christian Resources Development Corporation (CRDC) that was incorporated in
2009, they brought together about 120 scholars from 24 denominations to work on
the translation. According to the CRDC, the main objectives of producing the
CEB were to provide a new translation that would ensure smooth reading for
everyone including young people and to ensure that Scripture would be
translated at a level comfortable for most English readers. Translation begun
in late 2008 and the complete Bible was published in 2011.
Personal
comments:
This is
another version of the English Bible that I have not had the chance to read
until now, so my comments here will be based solely on the commentaries of
others and what I know about the version’s origins. Among the major Bible
versions listed here, the CEB is undoubtedly one of the newest, and it is also
one of the few English Bibles that is a joint ecumenical effort by
representatives from various Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox denominations.
As such, just like the NRSV, readers may find much less denominational bias in
its translation, and even be given the choice to read the Deuterocanonical
books (Apocrypha) should they wish to. Another point worth noting about the CEB
is the simplicity of its language, in which it strikes a balance between
providing a literal translation and rendering it in a way that most modern
English readers can read with ease. Nonetheless, one of the main drawbacks of
the CEB is the fact that it substitutes some well-established biblical terms
with what may seem to be eccentric renderings, such as “the Human One” instead
of “the Son of Man.”
10) The Message (MSG)
Type of
translation: Paraphrase
Brief
history:
The Message:
The Bible in Contemporary Language is the brainchild of Eugene H. Peterson (b.
1932), an American pastor and author. His inspiration for producing The Message
came from a time when he felt that the adults in his Bible classes were not
able to connect with the true message of the Bible. In his own words,
Peterson’s goal was “to bring the New Testament to life for two different types
of people: those who hadn’t read the Bible because it seemed too distant and
irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become ‘old
hat’. Work on producing The Message began after Peterson received a letter from
an editor in NavPress in 1990 requesting him to work on a new version of the
Bible. The New Testament was subsequently published in 1993, portions of the
Old Testament were published piecemeal over the following years, and the entire
Bible was published in 2002.
Personal
comments:
The Message
is arguably one of the most popular paraphrases of the Bible available in the
English language, being used in many Christian circles for its simple language
and ease of understanding. Its contents are generally in line with mainstream
biblical teachings, and it conveys the message of the Bible in a contemporarily
casual manner of language. Nevertheless, being a paraphrase and not an actual
translation backed by proper scholarship, a considerable number of verses and
texts have been rendered in a way that would undoubtedly raise many eyebrows
among seasoned Christians. As I mentioned earlier, paraphrases such as The
Message simply provide too much room for misinterpretations and distortions of
the meaning and intent behind the original texts, even though they may
generally remain true to biblical doctrine. Perhaps the best way to illustrate
this would be to compare The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6: 9-13) in both the NIV
(dynamic equivalence) and The Message:
“This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be
your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven
our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
(For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.)” – Matthew 6: 9-13 NIV
“With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:
Our Father in heaven, reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what’s best –
as above, so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven
with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge! You can do anything you want! You’re ablaze in beauty! Yes.
Yes. Yes.” –
Matthew 6: 9-13 MSG
So once again, which version of the
English Bible is the best to read and study? There is really no clear-cut
answer, but the only advice I can give would be to pick one that suits your
linguistic taste and would draw you closer to the Word of God in the best way
possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment