Regarding Bible Translations ~ Christianity Without The Insanity

This is part of a lesson I prepared for a Jr. and Sr. High Sunday School class a few years ago. I present it here not as a complete discussion on English Bible translations, but as a starting point for those interested in the differences in modern English translations. We needed to start with the basics, and after agreeing (though not proving) that God DOES exist and agreeing (though not proving) that He WOULD reveal himself to us in some way, and finding that the events of the Bible are historically accurate(if they are, then logically the first two fall into place), we turned our attention to which Bible is the “right” Bible. That’s where this lesson comes in. I cannot vouch for 100% accuracy here, but the information presented is accurate for the sources I had. In places where it is vague, it is by design, encouraging the reader to seek for themselves.

Since I was working with teens, we needed to start with the basics, and after agreeing (though not proving) that God DOES exist and agreeing (though not proving) that He WOULD reveal himself to us in some way, and finding that the a substantial number of events described in the Bible are historically accurate(if they are, then logically the first two fall into place), we turned our attention to which Bible is the “right” Bible.

That’s where this lesson comes in. I cannot vouch for 100% accuracy here, but the information presented is accurate for the sources I had. In places where it is vague, it is by design, encouraging the reader to seek for themselves.

If this shows any bias, that is NOT by design and I would appreciate any feedback. It was never my intention to turn the reader toward any particular translation, only to provide some of the general facts behind the translations as I could find them. So, without further ado, here it is (the format for the chart doesn’t seem to want to transfer, sorry. I lost the original formatting somewhere along the lines.)….

PS. I realize now as I republish this, that I need to go back and cite my sources. And I will do so as soon as I have time. In the meantime, please forgive my less-than-scholarly presentation of this post.

Roots of the Bible (before English)

Approx. 1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

Approx. 500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

Approx. 200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books. (First “official” translation from Hebrew.) (The apocrypha are a set of Hebrew writings that are very much related to the Bible, but were never considered “inspired”. They are still used by some groups today and are published in some Bibles used today.)

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture. (In other words, the institutionalized church finally “got it”).

382 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Testament) – Latin becomes the official language of scripture used by the institutionalized church which eventually tried to suppress all attempts to translate scripture into English or any other language – even attempts to publish in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek).

The Bible in English

The chart below will give you the basics of the earliest English translations of the Bible. It’s important to know that translating the Bible into any language, other than those “approved” by the institutionalized church (as it existed at the time), has always been met with opposition. Men have been killed for just possessing pieces of the Bible in “unofficial” formats. A study of how the Bible came to us in English should not be made without acknowledging the sacrifices made by those who brought it to us. Many books have been written on the history of the Bible and the author encourages you to refer to those published works. The purpose of this lesson is to examine the Bible as it is available to us today in English.

The original writers of the books and letters that make up the Bible wrote in the common languages of the people who would be the first readers of them. The original writings, or autographs, are lost to us (or at least, have yet to be discovered). Instead, we have copies, or manuscripts, that have been made over the years. The manuscripts that exist today are copies of copies of copies. Early translators had fewer manuscripts available while modern translators have many more. Today, thousands of manuscripts that have been discovered, many are in Greek or Hebrew (depending on which testament they are from) but others are early translations from the original languages into Latin or other languages. As well as manuscripts we have quotations of the Bible from early Christian writers. In fact, we have so many quotes that if all manuscripts were gone, we could reproduce the Bible just from those quotations.

However, none of these manuscripts and quotations are in English and must be translated. Translation is basically taking a word or phrase in one language and finding a word or phrase in the target language that means the same thing.

Translation methods

All translation from one language to another, whether it’s for the Bible or something else, especially when you are dealing with a language as it existed hundreds or thousands of years ago, requires a certain degree of interpretation. Most languages do not use the same sentence structure as the target language. Some words do not have an exact match in the new language. Some figures of speech or turns of phrase will not make sense in the new language. The translator must make a decision about what word or phrase to use in the target language.

In some cases, a word is “transliterated”. A transliterated is not translated at all but is presented in the new language with a spelling that tells you how to pronounce it. Many words in the English language as it exists today are from other languages and sound almost the same as they do in the original language. The word “baptize” is the most obvious example that you will see in the Bible. The word did not exist in English until translators chose to transliterate it from the Greek word “baptizo”.

In most cases, translators will try to find an equivalent word or phrase in the target language. There are basically three ways to translate something. While no translation is exactly one way or the other, the following are the basics of the translation philosophies. The methods are “form-driven” (word for word or literal), “meaning-driven” (thought for thought) and “paraphrase” (in someone’s own words). To explain the differences, consider the following example.

Let’s use this transliterated (spelled how it’s pronounced) Latin text as our original:

Velox frons vulpes volpes tripudios super ignavus canis.

Now a real original may be handwritten and have other issues, but let’s assume we can read this clearly and are certain of what it says in the original language.

A form driven translation might read like this:

The expeditious tawny vulpes gamboled traversely the dilatory canine

Now we can read it in English, but while accurate, it may not be the best translation for everyone. Word for word translators strive to find the best word to communicate the meaning in the target language while keeping as close to the original’s word order as possible. Reading can sometimes be difficult since the best word in the target language may not be a commonly used word to most people who speak that language. Proponents of the form driven method say that accuracy in preserving the words themselves should be of utmost importance.

A meaning driven translation would read like this:

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

Very clear to read and gets the meaning across. Meaning-driven translations fall somewhere between Literal and Paraphrase but strive to keep the meaning of the words that were originally written. Proponents of this thought-for-thought translation method say that subtle meaning of words in the original may actually be better communicated using a meaning-driven method, while a word-for-word method might be technically correct it might lose the “color” and “flavor” of the meaning.

A paraphrase might read like this:

That speedy fox, the brown one, you won’t believe it, but he jumped over that dog that was sleeping.

That might be a little wordy, but you get the idea. Paraphrases can be very free and can drift from what was originally written. While not very useful for study (in this author’s opinion), paraphrases can bring light to texts that can otherwise be rather dull. Paraphrases are usually the work of one person and represent that person’s opinion of what the text says.

Here’s a real example of John 3:16:

English Standard Version (+)
(Literal, Form-Driven or
Word for Word)

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten
Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have
eternal life.

Good News Translation (++)
(Meaning-Driven or
Thought for Thought)

For God loved the world
so much that he gave his
only Son, so that everyone
who believes in him may
not die but have eternal life

The Message (+++)
(Paraphrase)

This is how much God loved the world:
He gave his Son, his one and only Son.
And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed;
by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

Which Originals?

There is also a question of which originals we have available today are “best” or “most accurate”. This is a complicated issue that can not be easily explained.

It’s important to know that there is no perfect English translation. Every translation we have today is the work of humans and in spite of our best efforts, humans make mistakes. Any translation from one language to another involves the translator using his opinion at some point as to what is the best word to use and sometimes that opinion may not be the best one. While it is possible for us to learn Greek and Hebrew, even to make our own translation, there is still no way to be sure what you are translating is exactly what the original author intended.

It is the opinion of the author that a true student of the Bible will study multiple translations and not depend on any single English Bible. Subtle differences in wording and phrasing between translations can reveal to you, in a way you can understand, what the true word of God is.

The manuscripts that we have today can be divided into “families” based on the differences between them. And while there are differences, the manuscripts that have the most differences are still 99.5% alike. The remaining half percent of differences are mostly scribal errors – things like minor spelling variations, slips of the pen, or stray drops of ink. The remaining differences are things like repeated words or phrases or missing words or phrases. Without going into the process of producing manuscripts, it’s enough to know that any differences that exist from one original to another have no bearing on who God is or how we are to respond to Him. The places where there is a difference in meaning are very few but can be figured out using a science called “textual criticism”.

Textual criticism is a complex science that can be best explained as using multiple manuscripts (which are copies of copies of copies) to figure out what the original most likely was. The issues under consideration are the age of the manuscript (how many years it’s been since the original), the number of manuscripts of a certain type, where it was found and most importantly what the manuscript actually says and comparing problem areas with other areas that are not problems. Textual critics then take what they believe the original said and compile it into a new “manuscript”. An interesting fact is that today there are two compilations of the New testament that are typically used by translators, the only difference between the compilations is punctuation.

Even with these practices, there are still ongoing debates about where the true word of God is. You will hear arguments about “King James Only” and “Byzantine is better than Alexandrian” and “the received text is the only one we should use”. You might even hear arguments against the practice textual criticism. You will have to make your own decision in these issues, but keep in mind that these arguments are dealing with very very minor differences in the manuscripts, none of which have any bearing on how God has revealed himself or how we are to respond to Him. (†)

There is also much discussion regarding the motives of the people and teams involved in creating this translation or that one. Human nature leads us to believe that people are generally good and that those working on a project like Bible translation have the best of intentions. The truth is, there is really no way to know what the motives of many of these people were without talking to them irectly, and even then you can’t be certain. If these matters are of concern to you, I highly encourage you to look into them. But this author’s opinion on the matter is “buyer beware” and it is still hte best practice to use many translations though the course of your Bible study.

Now, when you take all these things together, – different translation methods, different originals, textual criticism, possible motivations of translators – it’s no wonder we have so many different English translations. So what’s the difference? Which one should I use? The following chart gives you most of the English versions of the Bible that are available today, how they are related, and other pertinent information to help you make a decision as to which one is best for you . This list is by no means all-inclusive but includes most translations that can be found on the shelves of your average bookstore. The reader is encouraged to dig deeper than the information provided here as there is not space explore all differences.

Comparison of English Bible translations**


Name	Type (closest)	Based on (previous)	By whom	Which originals	Other
Beginnings
Wycliffe	Literal	from Latin	John Wycliffe	Latin Vulgate	Circa 1382
Tyndale	Literal	from German, some from Wycliffe	William Tyndale	Luther's German translation of the Latin Vulgate	Circa 1526 - Much of Tyndale's original wording and phrasing survives in today's KJV.
Coverdale	Literal	Tyndale	Miles Coverdale	Vulgate, Erasmus' Greek (from 1100s)	1537 - First Bible printed in English, first "Authorized Version" (By the King of England)
Matthew	Literal	Coverdale and Tyndale	Thomas Matthew	See Tyndale and Coverdale	"Grandfather" of the KJV, very little changed from Matthew to KJV
Great Bible	Literal	Coverdale		See Coverdale	Second "official" English Bible, first authorized by King to use in churches. Virtually no difference from Coverdale's original work.
Geneva Bible	Literal	Coverdale	Committee of scholars, including Coverdale himself	See Coverdale	1557 - Bible of the common people of England and the early imegrants to the "new World" - Used by Shakespeare, Bunyan, and the Pilgrims. First edition with verse numberings
Bishop's Bible	Literal	Great Bible and Geneva Bible	Bishops of the Church of England	Coverdale - some reference to Greek and Hebrew	1568 - Produced by Bishops in an attempt to remove the heresies they felt the Geneva Bible was promoting.
King James (1611)	Literal	Bishop's, Geneva, and consulting manuscripts where available	King James and Church of England	Westcott and Hort, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus	Did not receive widespread acceptance at the time, but through many revisions has become a popular version still used by modern readers.
American Standard	Literal	King James (1885 revised)	Church of England	See King James	1901 - First Copyrighted version
Revised Standard	Literal	American Standard	International Council of Religious Studies (US and Canada - multidenominational members)	See King James	1952 - First Bible widely accepted by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant congregations
Amplified	Literal with alternate meanings	American Standard	Lockman Foundation	See King James	1955 - Can be difficult to read, but alternate meanings are preseented "inline"
Living Bible	Paraphrase	American Standard	Kenneth Taylor	See King James, but Taylor did not use any original language manuscripts	1971 - first time a paraphrase version was published. A very free-form paraphrase representative of the culture of the time.
New American Standard	Literal	American Standard	Lockman Foundation	OT - Biblica Hebraica - compiled by Rudolf Kittel, NT - Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece	1971 - Update of American Standard with new manuscript evidence, still carries traces of old English
Modern Translations
King James Version (1885 revision)	Literal	Bishop's, Geneva, and consulting manuscripts where available	Scholars and Bishops working under authority of King of England	Revision of King James to be in modern readable english - consulting Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text	1885- "Last" revision of the "old English" King James version.
New King James	Literal	King James	Nelson Publishers	See King James	1979 - Essentially a modern English update to KJV (you are instead of thou art, for example)
New Revised Standard	Literal	KJV, Revised Standard, American Standard	International Council of Religious Studies	OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia - with reference to Dead Sea Scrolls, NT: Greek New Testament - United Bible Society 1966	1979 - Update of American and Revised Standard version. First translation to make use of Dead Sea Scrolls and other modern manuscript discoveries.
New World Translation	Claims literal	Not explained, but basically King James	Jehovah's Witnesses	Unknown, but probably same and KJV	Revised 2013 - Distributed by Jehovah's Witness church to members and prospective members. Some claim it is biased toward JW teachings.
New American (not to be confused with American Standard)	Mostly literal	Not explained, but based on previous English Bibles published by Catholic church	Catholic Church	Latin Vulgate with reference to modern manuscript discoveries including Dead Sea Scrolls	Used and distributed by Catholic Church for member is USA.
Today's English (Good News)	Thought for Thought/Paraphrase	Not explained	American Bible Society	OT: Biblia Hebraica (1937), NT: Greek New Testament (UBS, 1975) and other modern manuscript discoveries	First Bible to claim to use the thought-for-thought translation message. Intended audience were those who speak English as a second language, but adopted by general public.
New American Standard (1995)	Literal	American Standard	Lockman Foundation	See NAS (1971)	Modern update to NAS (1971) and American standard)
New International Version (updated 2011)	Between Literal and thought-for-thought	New translation, but with nods to Good News Bible	International Bible Society/Zondervan	From preface: OT Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls and others, NT "Best current Greek New Testaments"	Originally published 1978, most common English translation in use today
New International Reader's Version	See above	NIV	Zondervan	See above	Lower-reading-level version intended for younger readers
Today's NIV	See above	NIV	Zondervan	See above	Gender neutral version of NIV, using "mankind" or "people" instead of "men" where appropriate.
New Century	Thought-for-thought	Similar to Good News	World Bible Translation Center	From a translation prepared for the deaf - Biblia Hebraica, Greek New Testament (UBS, 1983)	Gender inclusive, marketed to teens
International Children's Bible	Thought-for-thought	Not explained	World Bible Translation Center	see above	Children's version of New Century, claims to be first 'new' translation for preteens
Contemporary English	Thought-for-thought	Not explained	American Bible Society	Not explained	Version meant to be read aloud for children
The Message	Paraphrase	Not explained	Eugene Peterson	Not explained	Peterson is a Bible professor turned pastor and had studied the original Bible languages for many years. The Message is meant to be read like a novel and not to be used for regular study
Holman Christian Standard	Like NIV, publisher describes it at "Optimal Equivalence"	New translation	Southern Baptist Convention - Holman Publishers	OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th ed., NT: Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. and UBS Greek New Testament, 4th corrected ed.	Claims to be the first Bible of the Information Age, technology was used extensively in producing this translation
New Living Translation	Paraphrase	Living Bible	Tyndale	OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1937, NT: UBS Greek New Testament, 1993 and Novum Testamentum Graece, 1993	Based on Kenneth Taylor's paraphrse, but utilized original language sourced to be suitable for sutdy
English Standard	Literal	New Revised Standard	Good News Publishers	OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), NT: NT Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed. UBS), Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.)	2001, revised 2011 - Follows tradition of King Jaames and Revised Standard. Newest discoveries of manuscripts have been utilized as well as updating the language for the modern reader.
New Life Version (not to be confused with New Living Translation)	Thought-for-thought	Not explained	Christian Literature International, Gleason and Kathryn Ledyard	Not Explained	1969- An effort to bring the Bible to those who barely speak English. The vocabulary is composed of only 850 words.
God's Word	Thought-for-thought	Not explained	Lutheran church, Rev. Giessler	OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, NT: Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.)	Claims to be the first Bible reviewd by English experts at every step of the translation process.

† There are many excellent books that have been written on the subjects of manuscript differences and textual critcism that can give you a much more detailed view of the issues than what we have room for here. An excellent one to start with is “A User’s Guide to Bible Translations” by Dewey – Intervarsity Press © 2006.

**Most references to original manuscripts and translation styles are from the forwards in the published Bibles themselves. Other sources may tell you that Bible A translators used Manuscript family B, but since these sources vary in what they say, I am depending solely on what the translators had to say for themselves. Information on manuscripts, their sources, and their differences are available from many sources and are not included in this introductory study.

Quotes are cited within the text.

Types (Literal, paraphrase, etc.) that are mentioned are from personal reading and research in comparing the texts and personal study in Geek and Hebrew. I am by no means an expert in those languages, and depend heavily on dictionaries and software resources in arriving at the conclusions I have listed. I use Vine’s Dictionary, the Logos Bible Study Software original language tools (Logos Research Systems, Inc.), and eSword (freeware).

Other sources include:

Wikipedia.com
A User’s Guide to Bible Translations, by David Dewey – Intervarsity Press © 2006
Study articles from The Archeological Study Bible (NIV) – Zondervan © 2006 see copyright information in the published work for information regarding authorship and other information on the study articles.
Stations of the Book (http://ift.tt/1nbLkhi) – Dr. Gene Scott
– University of Los Angeles
Why I use the NIV Bible (http://ift.tt/1N1phPb) – Graham Pocket, freelance.(There are many great links from here regarding the differences between the NIV and KJV.)
Christian Web Site (http://ift.tt/1nbLkxy) – this is a great tool for comparing the Greek text as it exists in different manuscript
families as well as seeing how different English translations have rendered the original. Here you can see what the differences really are.
Bible Gateway (http://ift.tt/uWcRHb) – complete online versions of many translations, includes the ability to look up passages in multiple versions.

Christianity Without The Insanity

Sunday, January 10, 2016