dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (03/30/85)
Howdy, pardners. Because this net has been getting a little hot lately, maybe it is time to cool things down a little bit, or at least hopefully. For those of you who are familiar with the Bible, you probably know that there are many different translations. A partial list would include: King James Version (Authorized) New King James Version Revised Standard Version American Standard Version The Living Bible New American Standard Good New's Version Jerusalem Bible Amplified Bible Berkley Version New International Version (Thompson Chain Reference;N.I.V.,pg. 1505-1506) There are probably other versions floating around. If you know of any, post them and I'm sure we would like to hear about them. Oh, by the way, if anyone is won-dering, the Book, is a copy of the Living Bible. Now, for my second part. Which translation do you prefer? I know some people be-lieve almost doctrinally in one version; the King James comes to mind. And some of you will probably say the Greek originals. All power to you if you can read Koine. But, I am more interested in a potential growth, of everyone's spiritual life, through a mutual discussion of the merits of a translation. Let me start us off: I use the N.I.V.; partly because it was the first bible given to me, and partly because I haven't had much exposure to other translations. But, through the Sunday School class I teach, I've come into contact with the Living Bible. I do not like it; the meaning of some of the Greek has been changed. It just doesn't jive with the other popular versions. Now, on it's own, it ain't bad. But, in comparison to the R.S.V. or the N.I.V., I don't think the Living Bible stacks up. It just isn't a good translation, no matter how much we would like to believe that Paul, etc. meant what this translation says. Well,that's a start. Have fun, but let's not get angry at anybody, eh? The discussion can be a growing one, if we all decide to make it so. Just ignore any anarchistic comments on this one, and let fly with a comment or two. Till then, Make today a wonderful one for someone, DAVE BROWN
bsw@cbosgd.UUCP (Ben Walls) (03/30/85)
> Now, for my second part. Which translation do you prefer? I know some people > be-lieve almost doctrinally in one version; the King James comes to mind. I belg to a Xenos ( pronounced Zeenoz ) Christian Fellowship. Our Meetings are rather casual. For instance, We start off our meetings with someone playing a song on gitaur, occasionally with a fiddle accompaniment (sp?). Also, No "priests", etc. Anyway, our group uses the New American Standard Bible. I like these Bibles. They are re-written well. And since we have a person in the fellowship who knows Greek, he points out any "bad" traslations. From a New Christian (less than a year), Ben Walls ...cbosgd!bsw
ir278@sdcc6.UUCP (Paul Anderson) (04/01/85)
I've not been exposed to very many versions of the Bible, but of those I have read, I prefer the Standard Revised Edition. While the English isn't much more up-to-date than most other translations, I find it VERY easy to understand (perhaps in a clairvoyant sense; I believe that there is more power to the Book than ink on paper), and my own edition a bit more friendly than other Bibles I have seen - for instance, Jesus' words aren't typecast in blaring red. I read the Bible privately, at home...not once in my life have I ever gone to church. I've only been a Christian a few years (an I'm only 15 years old), and, having started on my own in finding God (actually he found me), I've discovered I can't seem to find a church I agree with. So my Bible is my closest tie with all Jesus has to teach me. Paul Anderson ucbvax!decvax!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ir278 "He had enough money to feed and clothe 1000 starving children, and instead he bought a Crystal Chapel to impress God into helping them. What of the money he spent on that silver hair?"
jhs@houxa.UUCP (J.SCHERER) (04/01/85)
One translation that was missed is my favorite: The New English Bible It's in modern English but not the close-to-slang that some of the other modern translations are. I was told by someone whom I respect that the New English is the best "paraphrased" translation and that the Jerusalem is the best literal one. I still like King James for the familiar passages because of the beautiful language but when I'm reading something difficult (like Paul), I go for the New English. John Scherer Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/01/85)
My preferred translations:
(1) RSV: I us it as a standard bible, accepted to some degree by almost
everyone.
(2) Jerusalem Bible: a good modern translation; the notes in the fullest
edition are excellent. My only beef is that they insist on
transliterating YHWH, complete with vowels!
Bibles I don't like:
(1) Living Bible: It's a paraphrase, and that's sufficient to condemn it in
my eyes.
(2) NIV: Tends to have a fundamentalist cant. (Remember the Sodom argument
of a few weeks ago?)
(3) KJV: You can't get one with the notes or the apocrypha, and there are
too many translation errors.
Don't care:
(1) NEB
(2) Todays English Version (also called Good News)
Haven't seen but want to acquire:
(1) New Jewish Version
(2) New American Bible
Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoehedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (04/01/85)
I recommend a combination of the Revised Standard Version and Today's
English Version (Good News Bible). However before choosing a translation,
you have to decide what translation principle you want it to follow. Most
of the newer translations use a criterion called "dynamic equivalence".
That is, they want their translation to have the same effect on the reader
that the originals did on the original reader. This contrasts with a more
literal translation, where the goal is to translate words and grammar
accurately. The problem with the literal method is that language
understanding is based on more than vocabulary and grammar. When you read a
text, you are trying to duplicate the thought process of the author, using
the text as a clue. In order for this to work, you have to share the same
general knowledge about the world, and the same assumptions about what sorts
of things are reasonable or unreasonable. The ability to detect satire
depends upon having the same idea of what is reasonable. (Consider the
famous example of Swift's "Modest Proposal".) Even the ability to figure
out what pronouns refer to depends upon your ability to follow what the
author is saying. So in order to understand the original languages, or a
literal translation, you need to know a lot about history. You have to be
able to put yourself in the place of a reader who is in the same culture as
the original author. Not all of us have a good enough knowledge of Biblical
times to do that. Indeed even scholars are not always able to understand
what a text means without significant research. So the purpose of a dynamic
equivalence translation is to provide a translation that ordinary people
will understand correctly.
To get an idea of what this means, I am going to include a couple of
examples from RSV and TEV in parallel. RSV is the most literal translation
that any of you are likely to use. TEV is probably the most extreme example
of dynamic equivalence.
Job 9:19, 14-17
Revised Standard Today's English
If it is a contest of strength, Should I try force?
behold him! Try force on God?
If it is a matter of justice, Should I take him to court?
who can summon him? Who would make him go?
If I sin, thou dost mark me, You were watching me to see
if I would sin,
and dost not acquit men of so that you could refuse
thy iniquity. to forgive me.
If I am wicked, woe to me! As soon as I sin, I'm in
trouble with you.
If I am righteous, I cannot but when I do right, I get no
lift up my head, credit.
for I am filled with disgrace I am miserable and covered with
and look upon my affliction. shame.
And if I lift myself up, thou If I have any success at all,
dost hunt me like a lion, you hunt me down like a lion;
and again work wonders to hurt me you even work miracles.
against me;
thou dost renew thy witnesses You always have some witness
against me, against me;
and increase thy vexation your anger toward me grows
toward me; and grows;
thou dost bring fresh hosts you always plan some new attack.
against me.
I believe that the implications of the text are much clearer in the TEV
translation. It doesn't actually add anything, but in the more literal
translation, the meaning is clouded behind somewhat archaic language and
idioms that are different than ours. Of course there are still good reasons
to want a literal translation. If we got into a discussion about the
details of this passage, it would be important to know exactly what was
there. But for normal reading, I prefer TEV. TEV is particularly good
with books where indirect language is used, such as Job and Ecclesiastes.
It used to be that there was a disagreement between conservatives and
liberals about the use of dynamic equivalence. Indeed when it first
came out, the Revised Standard version was rejected by conservatives
as not sufficiently faithful to the original texts! However with the
NIV and Living Bible, it is clear that there is no longer any significant
different between conservatives and liberals about this issue. RSV
still maintains its bad reputation among some conservatives. But I think
there is no longer any reason why it should. Using the Living Bible
and rejecting RSV is truly "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".
The place to start when looking at translations is probably where they
fit in this spectrum between literal translations and translations
based on dynamic equivalence. I would place things in roughly this
order, starting from the literal end:
New American Standard
Revised Standard, King James
New International, New American Bible
Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible
Today's English, Living Bible
I would recommend that anyone who is serious about the Bible should
have at least two translations, one from first three lines and
another from the last two.
The next thing to look at is the quality of the scholarship. This
is harder for me to judge, since I am not an expert in Greek and Hebrew.
However I have read a number of reviews, and have looked fairly
carefully at most of these translations. Here are the translations
about which I have heard significant complaints:
King James - the scholarship is simply several hundred years out
of date. There are many errors, and many English words
that no longer mean the same thing. I can't see why anyone
would use this any more.
New American - each book is different. Some are more literal
than others. Different books translate the same phrases
differently. Most of the individual translations are good.
However it is disorienting to use a Bible where different
translation techniques are used in different place.
Jerusalem Bible - One critic complained that it is too
quick to change the original text, using the Septuagint
(an early Greek translation) or conjectural emendations.
These are techniques that all translations use. It is just
an issue of how judiciously they are used. JB does rearrange
the text of OT books now and then, a practice that I consider
unacceptable. E.g. Is. 38:21-22 is moved to after vs. 6
New English - tends to adopt daring conjectures. They claim to
have special insight about the meaning of obscure words in
the OT, an insight that other OT scholars often do not
agree with. Also, the level of translation tends to be
spotty. I.e. it varies from literary to colloquial with
no obvious reason, and also from literal to paraphrase.
I prefer to know whether I am reading RSV or TEV, and not
have the two translation principles alternating. NEB also
sometimes rearranges the text of the OT. E.g. Is. 5:24-25
is put after 10:4.
Living Bible - I'm not very familiar with this one, but it has a
very bad reputation, even among conservative scholars.
The problem with dynamic equivalence is that the translator
must use his knowledge of the way the original audience would
have understood the text. If the translator is not a very
good historian, this will mean inserting his own bad ideas.
Apparently many people believe this is what happened in
the Living Bible.
The translations I would recommend are Revised Standard, New International,
Jerusalem, and Today's English. I feel fairly strongly that everyone should
have a copy of the Revised Standard. I consider the New American Standard
to be too literal for normal mortals to use. New International turns out to
do at least some "dynamic equivalence", so if you really want to know what
the original text says, you might prefer not to use it. I'm not adamant
about this. NIV doesn't go all that far. But the two passages I checked
out in the NT when doing research for this article did show this difference.
E.g. in Romans 8:1-4, NIV used "sinful nature" for "flesh". There's nothing
wrong with this. Most translations now use something other than "flesh":
NIV: sinful nature; JB: unspiritual nature; TEV: human nature. But it is a
move in the direction of dynamic equivalence.
My own personal opinion is that your second Bible should be Today's English.
I believe it is the most consistent and has the most reliable scholarship of
the dynamic equivalence translations. However some of you may regard that
it has gone too far. If so, NIV or Jerusalem would be good compromises.
Although conservatives might have problems with some of the textual
criticism behind Jerusalem, it has many good qualities to recommend it. It
gives you the best feeling for the differences in style in the original
documents. In many ways it makes the results of modern Biblical criticism
visible. So if you are not a fundamentalist, it is a very attractive
translation. For conservatives, NIV would probably be the best "compromise"
translation. However for my taste it is somewhat too literal for this
purpose. (A popular combination among fundamentalists is New American
Standard for the literal translation and NIV for the translation that
they actually read. I could never handle this combination, but if you
hate the name of RSV, it is something to think about.)
If your ideas of Biblical scholarship are compatible with mine (i.e. you
are not a fundamentalist), you should consider getting the Oxford Annotated
Bible. It has various notes that you may find quite helpful in
understanding the Bible. This is the standard edition used in University
courses on the Bible. There are conservative study Bibles for those of you
who are more conservative than I am. However I don't know enough about them
to have a recommendation.
It used to be that Catholics, conservatives Protestants, and liberal
Protestants had separate translations. Fortunately, this is much less
true these days. However there are still some differences. Here are
the ones that I know of:
conservatives have a tradition (irrational, in my view, and probably
no longer in effect) of opposition to the Revised Standard
Version. They are also likely to find the New English, and
possibly Jerusalem offensive because of the critical principles
used.
liberal Protestants are likely to find the New American Standard
unusable and the Living Bible offensive.
Catholics should know that the New American and Jerusalem are
Catholic translations, and that the Revised Standard and
TEV (Good News Bible) are available in editions with
imprimaturs. (I think the Oxford Annotated Bible, with
Apocrypha has an imprimatur. I know that the standard
TEV with Apocrypha does.)
I have not mentioned that Jewish Publishing Society's translation of the OT,
because (1) it is not the whole Bible (from our perspective and (2) I don't
know it well. It has a very good reputation among scholars. It would be
somewhere between RSV and TEV in my chart. It might well prove to be the
best of the "compromises" between literalness and dynamic equivalence. Note
by the way that JPS has an older translation, which as far as I can see has
nothing to recommend it. Look at the copyright dates. The Torah is in the
60's, I think, and the Prophets and Writings are fairly recent. Ironically,
conservative Christians may like it, because it tries to translate the
Masoretic text, with a minimum of changes.bukys@rochester.UUCP (Liudvikas Bukys) (04/01/85)
apoc.ry.phal \-f*l\ adj 1 often cap : of or resembling the Apocrypha 2 : not canonical : SPURIOUS -- SYN see FICTITIOUS -- apoc.ry.phal.ly \-f*-le\ adv -- apoc.ry.phal.ness n deu.tero.ca.non.i.cal \.d(y)ut-*-ro-k*-'nan-i-k*l\ adj [NL deuterocanonicus, fr. deuter- + LL canonicus canonical] : of, relating to, or constituting the part of the Roman Catholic canon of scripture that contains writings whose authenticity has been questioned ------- So, how did the deuterocanonical pieces get into the Roman Catholic canon? Mostly because they appeared in some widely-used texts, in particular, in the Septuagint, often abbreviated as "LXX", a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures produced by a group of 70 scholars (hence the name) in the third century BC. Circa 100 AD, a synod of rabbis met at Jamnia, and agreed upon criteria by why which some texts were to be excluded from the canon, and provided for a new translation into Greek. ``Baruch and the Epistles of Jeremiah were not of Palestinian origin. Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira) and First Maccabees were written after the time of Esdra. Tobit, along with parts of Daniel and Esther, were originally composed in Aramaic and also probably outside of Palestine, the book of Judith was probably written in Aramaic, and Wisdom and Second Maccabees were written in Greek.'' [The Catholic Catechism, John A. Hardon, S.J., Doubleday] "The Epistles of Jeremiah" doesn't ring a bell, so maybe that was dropped from the Catholic canon too. The Catholic list dates to 382 AD, from a declaration by Pope Damascus I, which follows the Septuagint. The Protestant Reformers challenged this, preferring to follow the Council of Jamnia. ------- The connotation of the word "apocryphal" when referring to the deuterocanonical books bothers me somewhat, in that it suggests that there is no good reason at all for their inclusion in anyone's canon. On the contrary, they are there for at least defensible historical reasons. Even from a Protestant or Jewish point of view, the deuterocanonical books are less apocryphal than other "Apocrypha". Liudvikas Bukys rochester!bukys (uucp) via allegra, decvax, seismo bukys@rochester (arpa) P.S. I seem to remember that some pretty old Hebrew texts of some of this stuff may have been discovered.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/02/85)
[Forgot my sales pitch]
There is a very interesting and useful book on this subject:
_The Word of God_
F. Lloyd Bailey, ed.
John Knox Press (1983, I think)
It contains discussions of various points of biblical scholarship,
linguistics, and translation, followed by reviews of the good and bad points
of all of the major translations available at the time (the NKJV is not
reviewed, however). These all proceed out of a doggedly mainline protestant
viewpoint, so the evangelicals out there are probably going to have a lot of
problems with this book. At the end is an important piece which lays out
the circumstances surrounding the creation of the KJV. Everyone should read
this, as it will undoubtedly conflict with commonly held notions about that
translation. (Few people know, for instance, that the orginal editions all
contained the Apocrypha, and were heavily annotated.) I highly recommend
this book.
Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoeptl@fluke.UUCP (Mike Andrews) (04/02/85)
Hi there,
One more version to add to your fine list:
The New American Bible --- this is the Roman Catholic version.
This version includes some books that aren't included in other
texts. For instance, Maccabees and Sirach. Sirach is very much like
Proverbs. Like you, I enjoy reading different versions to get a richer
flavor for what God is saying and man is interpreting.
God's Blessings to All,
Mike Andrews
--
*** Ezekiel 37:1-14 *** *** Ephesians 5:8-21 ***
*** Job 3:25 and Mark 5:36 ***
{decvax,ihnp4}!uw-beaver! \
{sun,allegra}! >fluke!ptl
{ucbvax,hplabs}!lbl-csam! /cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (04/04/85)
[] Dave Brown has asked for information about translations of the Bible, and about people's preferences. Here are some translations that he did not mention: 1. Msgr. Ronald A. Knox did the first Roman Catholic translation of the Bible into English since the Douay-Rheims version. 2. J. B. Phillips has translated the New Testament and the earlier part of Isaiah. He may have done more; my information is almost 20 years old. For my taste, the Phillips translation is the most attractive. It is definitely in "modern" (twentieth century) English, and sometimes surprisingly down-to-earth and colloquial. (Where the AV has "O foolish Galatians" Phillips has "Have all you Galatians gone mad?") This is fitting in the New Testament, since (so I understand) the original Greek is decidedly unpolished. I once asked a priest (who was also a professor) about the quality of various translations, including Knox. He said that Knox's scholarship had been faulted; he knew much less Hebrew than some later translators. Close attention to Knox's footnotes shows that he stuck to the Vulgate, even when it seemed to be wrong. Nevertheless, his translation is quite readable. Peace, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 870-5853 From vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath!watarts!dbrown Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site petsd.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watarts.UUCP Path: petsd!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath!watarts!dbrown From: dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Bible Translations Message-ID: <8368@watarts.UUCP> Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 18:18:42 EST Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 02:28:07 EST Distribution: net Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 49 Howdy, pardners. Because this net has been getting a little hot lately, maybe it is time to cool things down a little bit, or at least hopefully. For those of you who are familiar with the Bible, you probably know that there are many different translations. A partial list would include: King James Version (Authorized) New King James Version Revised Standard Version American Standard Version The Living Bible New American Standard Good New's Version Jerusalem Bible Amplified Bible Berkley Version New International Version (Thompson Chain Reference;N.I.V.,pg. 1505-1506) There are probably other versions floating around. If you know of any, post them and I'm sure we would like to hear about them. Oh, by the way, if anyone is won-dering, the Book, is a copy of the Living Bible. Now, for my second part. Which translation do you prefer? I know some people be-lieve almost doctrinally in one version; the King James comes to mind. And some of you will probably say the Greek originals. All power to you if you can read Koine. But, I am more interested in a potential growth, of everyone's spiritual life, through a mutual discussion of the merits of a translation. Let me start us off: I use the N.I.V.; partly because it was the first bible given to me, and partly because I haven't had much exposure to other translations. But, through the Sunday School class I teach, I've come into contact with the Living Bible. I do not like it; the meaning of some of the Greek has been changed. It just doesn't jive with the other popular versions. Now, on it's own, it ain't bad. But, in comparison to the R.S.V. or the N.I.V., I don't think the Living Bible stacks up. It just isn't a good translation, no matter how much we would like to believe that Paul, etc. meant what this translation says. Well,that's a start. Have fun, but let's not get angry at anybody, eh? The discussion can be a growing one, if we all decide to make it so. Just ignore any anarchistic comments on this one, and let fly with a comment or two. Till then, Make today a wonderful one for someone, DAVE BROWN
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/10/85)
Well, I usually read (surprise!) the KJV. But what I would like to ask is: what version do you use with your children? My daughter (age 8) reads the Living. It's easy to understand, but do any of you have opinions on other versions that are helpful for teaching children? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/10/85)
In article <875@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >But what I would like to ask is: what version do you use with >your children? My daughter (age 8) reads the Living. It's easy >to understand, but do any of you have opinions on other versions >that are helpful for teaching children? Given the blatant mistranslations of the Living Bible, I see no reason why anyone should read it. Isaiah in particular is full of errors which can only have been deliberate. I'd recommend the Today's English (Good News) Version; the language is much simpler than that of any other true translation, and it doesn't have any theological axes to grind. THe _Good News for Modern Man_ NT edition also has nice little line drawings illustrating the text. Sorry to have flamed all over the LB, but it simply does not follow the ancient texts. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/10/85)
> Well, I usually read (surprise!) the KJV. Surprise? Not really. > But what I would like to ask is: what version do you use with > your children? My daughter (age 8) reads the Living. It's easy > to understand, but do any of you have opinions on other versions > that are helpful for teaching children? When I was REAL young I read the "Bible in Pictures." Ahhhh the innocence of youth. Might I suggest that "Daddy" is the best interpreter of difficult biblical text as opposed to buying a "simplified and painless" translation. > Science is Dead. Those are musty old books you smell.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/13/85)
> > Well, I usually read (surprise!) the KJV. > > Surprise? Not really. It wasn't s'pozed to be a surprise... > > Science is Dead. > > Those are musty old books you smell. You mean from around 1859 ... ? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
spw2562@ritcv.UUCP (Steve Wall @ RIT) (04/19/85)
> Given the blatant mistranslations of the Living Bible, I see no reason why > anyone should read it. Isaiah in particular is full of errors which can > only have been deliberate. > > I'd recommend the Today's English (Good News) Version; the language is much > simpler than that of any other true translation, and it doesn't have any > theological axes to grind. THe _Good News for Modern Man_ NT edition also > has nice little line drawings illustrating the text. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe It has been my understanding that the Living Bible was good as far as a study guide/lesson book, but not a bible. I'd like some references to some of the blatant mistranslations, if anyone has any. Also, I've been told that the Good News bible was inaccurate in many instances. Anyone care to substantiate/refute that? Personnally, I prefer the KJV, mostly because that's what I was brought up using, but I also own an ASV. There are a lot of good translations out there, so nobody should be without one they like. Steve Wall ritcv!ritvp!spw2562