fontana@uunet.uu.net (Tod Fontana) (07/05/90)
Does anyone out there have any facts (not opinions) on the different
types of Bibles out there (King James, New American, etc)? I'm
curious as to how they originated, how literal their translations are,
how politacally motivated they may or may not be, and how "accurate"
they are? (I know this demands opinions, but lets try to back it up
with historical or literary fact).
Thanx.
[I collect Bible translations as sort of a hobby, so let me try to
summarize the ones I know.
"authorized" lineage
AV, RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV
use concensus scholarship, "formal equivalency"
NAB, NAB w/2nd ed. NT
NIV
RSV, RSV w/2nd ed. NT, NRSV
JB, NJB
use concensus scholarship, "dynamic equivalency"
TEV/Good News Bible
NEB, REB
Phillips
conservative scholarship, literal
NASB
conservative scholarship, "format equivalency"
NKJV
paraphrase
LB
I. The "Authorized" lineage
Just as a matter of history, I'll start by summarizing the
translations that started with the Authorized Version ("King James").
(Note that AV and KJV mean the same thing. I normally use AV, because
"King James" is really a nickname.)
RV - Revised Version - first major attempt to revise the AV, primarily
because of the great number of earlier manuscripts. Great Britain.
ASV - American Standard Version - American equivalent of RV, done
shortly thereafter. Contained some additional advances in
scholarship. Tended to be more literal than AV.
RSV - Revised Standard Version, yet another American revision, done
primarily because of yet more manuscripts, including Dead Sea Scrolls.
Backed out of literalness of ASV, though still not a very free
translation. Included scholarly views that were controversial at the
time (like translating Is 7:14 as young woman instead of virgin). So
it was considered flamingly liberal at the time. Most of these
features are now present in evangelical translations.
NASB - New American Standard Bible - in some sense a conservative
reaction to RSV. Tried to return to the supposed accuracy (i.e.
literalness) of ASV, backed out of some of the more controversial
positions of the RSV. However did still make use of early manuscripts
(though not very aggressively).
NKJV - New King James - I have looked at the preface and a few
passages, but I don't own this. Seems to be in opposition to the
textual scholarship of the previous revisions: it adopts the "majority
text". See below. Updates AV by removing "thee" and "thou", and
other things that are blatantly inappropriate in the 20th Cent., but
otherwise sticks very close to AV. Presumably this means it is not as
literal as the AV or NASB. Sees to be a proprietary translation, done
by Thomas Nelson.
II. Current translations
I have classified current translations alone two axes: their approach
on textual matters, and their translational theory. By textual
matters I mean which Hebrew and Greek text they translate. As I'm
sure you all know, we have many manuscripts. Textual criticism is the
art of taking these manuscripts and figuring out what the original (if
any -- there are some scholars who think that the whole concept of
"original" may be misleading for the Gospels) was. I am not competent
to comment on textual matters in the OT. The concensus view, among
both conservative and liberal NT scholars, is that the best text is
that represented by a small number of early manuscripts. Early in the
20th Cent. this meant primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, two major
manuscripts from the early 4th Cent. Since then we have found papyrii
going back as early as the mid 2nd Cent. They have generally
supported the accuracy of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, though some
details have changed. The payrii are not complete, but there are
enough of them that we have fairly good coverage from documents of
about 200 A.D. The documents from before 200 are really fragmentary.
All of this is based on a fairly small number of early documents. If
you simply count existing Greek manuscripts, they are primarily late,
and mostly follow texts that most scholars think have a number of
minor additions and other changes. There is now a small group of
scholars who believe that this "majority text" is the best. It very
similar to the text on which the AV is based. At one point I thought
this view was completely crackpot, but it appears that some competent
people believe it. It is still, shall we say, unusual. I'm not the
best person to give detailed evidence. But you should know whether
translations are based on concensus scholarship, i.e. use the latest
discoveries in early manuscripts, or stick with the majority text.
The other major axis is translational theory. They are two major
ones: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence
says that we are trying to produce something whose form is as close to
the original as possible. The same Greek word should be translated
consistently as the same English word where possible, so people can
see the form of the Greek by looking at the English. This has some
similarity to a literal translation. However the major formal
equivalence translations aren't really what I'd call literal. They do
try to deal with idioms. There are lots of Greek words that can have
many different effects, particularly prepositions and conjunctions. A
Greek expert can normally tell which effect is meant in a given
passage. Normally formal equivalence translations will choose
different English words to express this. But still the intent is to
bring over the form as well as the content of the original. Dynamic
equivalence says that the goal of translation is to transfer the same
message to the 20th Cent. reader that the original did to the original
reader. The English sentence structure will often not be at all
similar to the original, since people say things differently in
English than in Greek. Attempts will be made to bring out the
implications of figures of speech and other implications that were
part of the intended meaning but require special efforts to get across
in English. This is still intended to be a translation. It is not
supposed to add any interpretations by the translator.
A. The major formal equivalency translations
Let me start with the translations that I think are most widely
quoted. These are all based on the formal equivalency method, and all
accept modern textual scholarship. The first three are very similar.
They are
NAB, NAB w/2nd ed. NT (New American Bible) Catholic
NIV (New International Version) evangelical Protestant
RSV, RSV w/2nd ed. NT, NRSV (Revised Standard Version) liberal Protestant
These translations all try to stick as close to the original as
possible while still being readable English. None of them use "thee
and thou", or other obsolete words. Because they all adopt pretty
much the same translational approach, and they are all based on modern
textual scholarship, they tend to be very similar. You can find many
verses that are identical or nearly identical. They are all fine
translations. There are some minor differences. First, I think you
can see slight differences in how literal they are. In the NT at
least here's the order
NAB 2nd edition, RSV - the most literal. The original RSV took
very strictly the instructions to stick with AV wording where
possible
NRSV - does a bit more to bring out the force of prepositions,
conjunctions, and various expressions where literal translation
would not do so
NIV, NAB 1st edition - go just slightly further than NRSV (though
in NAB 1st edition there are clear differences in different
NT books)
Other unique features:
NAB - the OT is uneven. It was done over decades. Gen was so
far out of date that it had to be retranslated, so it ended
up visibly newer, i.e. less literal and using more modern
scholarship. Even the NT tended to be a bit uneven. The
same expression would be translated differently in Mat. and
Luke. The 2nd edition smooths this out, but makes it
more literal. The newer parts of the OT still tend to have
a less literal feeling. However this is still a competent
translation. For detailed study of the NT, if you want
something as close to the original words as possible but
still want modern textual scholarship, the 2nd edition might be the
best translation for you. In the OT they sometimes rearrange
the order of passages. There's some theory that the
originals got out of order. I find it annoying.
NIV - I find this more attractive the more I look at it (though it
is not one of my default translations). It tries to go as
far towards readability as one can go while still showing
you the form of the original.
NRSV - still guided by the instruction to stick with AV wording
where possible. It's not a bad compromise between literalness
and readability. Its most visible feature is an avoidance
of masculine gender where the original used masculine to
mean everyone. "brothers" will be translated "brothers and
sisters", and "he" as "they" (with the whole passage turned
plural). This was not true of RSV and RSV 2nd edition.
The textual scholarship of all of these is very similar, but the NAB
2nd edition and NRSV are enough newer that there are a few places
where there are minor differences from NIV. Most people won't notice
it. (NIV is based on the 2nd edition of the UBS Greek. NAB 2nd
edition and NRSV are based on the 3rd. NRSV says they had access to
the 4th in draft.)
B. Jerusalem Bible
The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic translation, based on the French
Bible de Jerusalem. The 2nd edition is known as the New Jerusalem
Bible. As far as I can tell, no policies have changed in the NJB. It
simply used some new manuscripts and has reexamined various decisions.
The Jerusalem Bible basically accepts all the same theories as the
three above, but comes out with a very different result. Part of it
may be the difference between American and British practice. But the
Jerusalem Bible tends to be a bit closer to a dynamic equivalence
translation. It also tends to be slightly wordier. The OT
scholarship tends to be more "aggressive". I.e. they think the Hebrew
is corrupt and use an early Greek translation a bit more often than
the American translations (though RSV and NRSV go a bit further in
this direction than NAB and NIV). They use the original names of God
in the OT. "Yahweh" is used where other modern translations say "the
LORD". Mostly the difference is simply stylistic. I think they
simply did a better job of divorcing themselves from memories of the
AV. This translation is well regarded by scholars, particularly in
the OT. In my view the NT seems to be a bit uneven, i.e. to vary
between formal and dynamic equivalence. It also shuffles parts of
the OT where they think the original is out of order.
C. Dynamic equivalence translations using concensus scholarship
In this section I am going to include
TEV (Todays English Version), also known as Good News Bible,
from the American Bible Society (a conservative Protestant
organization that has managed to produce a liberal
translation)
NEB, REB (New English Bible, Revised English Bible) - done by
a group of "mainline" churches in Great Britain. REB
is the 2nd edition of the NEB. (Actually there were
a few minor changes made to the NEB after initial publication,
but it was never called 2nd edition.)
Phillips, translation of the NT only, done by a well-known
British scholar. He was working on the OT, but died before
finishing it. (The joke went that it would be called
Phillips' 66.)
Phillips is best thought of as a paraphrase, or maybe a very free
translation. It was very popular for a few decades after the war. It
was thought that he did the best job of presenting Paul's thought that
has ever been done. Sometimes he got carried away and became a bit
too much of a paraphrase. This was corrected in a 2nd edition. A lot
of people still think this is the best translation to read simply to
get a sense of things.
My favorite is the TEV. The big challenge in dynamic equivalence
translations is to be systematic. You don't want to do a formal
equivalence translation and just now and then where you happen to have
a brilliant insight paraphrase one sentence. Doing this gives a very
uneven feeling. TEV has a remarkably consistent style, and does a
very good job of bringing out all of the implications implied in the
original but not obvious in a literal translation. See particularly
Job, which is full of irony, much of which is not visible in other
translations. Bibles have traditionally become a model of style.
Luther's translation did much to form modern German. Similarly with
the AV for English. The TEV is a model of simple, clear language. I
read it before writing any major technical documents. Some passages
in the prophets are rendered as prose, with the amount of parallelism
reduced. This is not done for the more poetical parts, obviously.
They comment that things that come out as good, dignified prose look
silly as poetry in English, so they think translatiing this way does
more justice to the original. I'd rather have poetry translated with
a bit more formal equivalence.
The NEB got rave reviews when it first came out. It was the first
"official" translation to completely break with the AV tradition, and
also to adopt dynamic equivalence. Of course "private" translations
such as Phillips and Goodspeed had done so before. But this was an
official translation. Like any dynamic equivalence translation, it
clarifies a lot of things. However I do not like its style and I do
not trust its scholarship. The style tends to be "high-falutin'", in
my view -- pseudo-literary. Not King James, but too intentionally
dignified. It is interesting to see how two translations with the
same theory can be as opposite as TEV and NEB. Also, its dynamic
equivalence is not as consistently carried out as TEV's. Its textual
criticism is idiosyncratic. There are many words, particularly in the
OT, whose meaning isn't known. But they tend to make guesses that are
rather different that most other scholars. This translation is not
often quoted by scholars (though to be fair, neither is the TEV). The
REB updates the scholarship a bit and reexamines some issues, but
doesn't change the basic approach very much.
D. Conservative translations
Now we come to two translations that consciously reject concensus
scholarship. I am not the best source of information on these,
because I don't own any of them. But I have looked at them, and do
know why they were done. The first is NASB. At a time when
translations were becoming less literal and new manuscripts were being
used, the NASB translators believed it was appropriate to return to
the tradition of the ASV. Thus it is rather literal, and it is rather
more cautious about using newly discovered manuscripts than the RSV
was. It was intended to be more acceptable to evangelical Christians,
who at that time generally considered the RSV to be the work of the
devil. (Since then people seem to have gotten over their shock, and
accepted just about everything the RSV did. The NIV generally goes
further than the original RSV, and has been well received in the
evangelical community.) I consider it so literal as to be nearly
unreadable. If you really need this, you should be using an
interlinear edition (original language with a literal translation
written under it). Note that although it was cautious about new
manuscripts, and rejected some of the more controversial decisions of
the RSV, it didn't really have a clear alternative theory to suggest
(as the NJKV seems to).
The NKJV is a more recent translation that seems to have similar
goals. However this time the ideal is the AV, rather than the ASV.
The AV is probably a better starting point, because the AV really
didn't strike a bad balance between literalness and readability. It
tends to be more literal than modern translations, but part of that is
that they simply didn't understand some idioms that we do now.
However to be fair the NASB was intended as a hardcore study Bible,
for people who really wanted to know exactly what the original said.
For that purpose, literalness is an asset. I think NKJV is intended
for more general use. The OT uses the Dead Sea Scrolls. However the
NT is produced using the "majority text" theory, which I discussed
above. (I still think this is a crackpot idea.) The NKJV has gotten
rid of blatantly out of date language, including "thee" and verbs
ending in "est". But they've tried to stick with the AV where
possible.
Finally, I should really mention the Living Bible. This is frankly a
paraphrase. I believe it was done from the RSV. It has not gotten
good reviews by scholars. I think you're better off with TEV. But
I'm not the one to give a detailed review.
--clh]cattanac@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (07/08/90)
I have been recommending getting a study Bible for those who get a NKJV, so the 'problem' passages will be labeled. I know Ryrie has one (it's the one I bought). I sorta like the 'high-falutin' style :-). I have heard that you are better off using more than one translation, they are about $5 if you get paperback. -- -catt (cattanac@cs.uiuc.edu) Carthage must be destroyed.
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (07/08/90)
On an interesting note along these lines, I saw recently in a local bookstore a Bible labelled as a Catholic edition with the name "Tyndale" on the spine. If any of you are familiar with 16th C. religious history, this name should be familiar to you as the first translator of the Bible into English and a staunch Calvinist who made quite a few enemies by publishing this translation (incidentally, Tyndale's text was the basis for a good portion of the King James translation). I didn't get a chance to look closely at this Bible at the time since I was in a hurry and I think it might have been shrink-wrapped, but I'm curious to see if it bears the imprimatur and nihil obstat. Also, a good book on the topic of English translations of the Bible (although it's a bit dated now) is _The English Bible_ by Sir Herbert Grierson. It was written in the 40s or 50s if I recall correctly and is out of print (I found a copy in a used book store in St. Louis that had purchased the entire holdings of the library of a recently closed seminary), but larger libraries should have this book. -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont Consulting and dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu production work. Free Estimates. dhosek@ymir.bitnet uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 [I can certainly see why seeing Tyndale on a Catholic Bible would seem ironic. However I suspect this was a Catholic edition of some modern translation. Tyndale is a publishing house that publishes lots of Bibles, so I rather suspect it was the publisher. In every case I've seen, the word "Catholic" on a Bible, even when a translation made by Protestants, means that there is an imprimature. There are Catholic editions of most major translations. It used to be that the Catholic editions had changes in a couple of key passages. However there has now been enough convergence between Catholic and Protestant scholarship that this is seldom true anymore. It normally means that the Bible includes the Apocrypha, and has sufficient explanatory notes to satisfy Catholic requirements. It is perfectly possible to write those notes in such a way that they are acceptable to both Catholics and Protestants. (The Good News Bible is a good example.) I should note that the primary problem with 16th Cent. Protestant translations from the Catholic point of view was not so much the text as the exegetical footnotes. --clh]
cattanac@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (07/10/90)
We have had descriptions of the various Bible/NT translations, but no quotes to let people get a feel for them. If we can spare the bandwidth, I have given John 1:1-5 below from the translations available to me. If someone could add the translations I have missed, I would appreciate it. It seems that the 'committee' translations don't stray very far from each other. NIV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. NKJV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. NASB: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. Peshitta (Lamsa translation): The Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. Everything came to be by his hand; and without him not even one thing that was created came to be. The life was in him, and the life is the light of men. And the same light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it. The Living Bible: Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. He created everything there is--nothing exists that he didn't make. Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. His life is the light that shines through the darkness--and the darkness can never extinguish it. Barclay: When the world began, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God. The Word was there in the beginning with God. It was through the agency of the Word that everything else came into being. Without the Word not one single thing came into being. As for the whole creation, the Word was the life principle in it, and that life was the light of men. The light continues to shine in the darkness, and the darkness has never extinguished it. GNB/TEV: Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God. From the very beginning the Word was with God. Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him. The Word was the source of life, and this life brought light to mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out. Phillips: At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out. Williams: In the beginning the Word existed; and the Word was face to face with God; yea, the Word was God Himself. He is the One who was face to face with with God in the beginning. It was through Him that everything came into existance, and apart from Him not a single thing came into existance. It was by Him that life began to exist, and that life was the light of mankind. So the light continues to shine in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it. NRSV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. -- -catt (cattanac@cs.uiuc.edu) Carthage must be destroyed.
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (07/10/90)
One translation/paraphrase of the Bible not mentioned that everyone should have a look at is the "Cotton Patch Bible" a paraphrase using the language of central Georgia. Unfortunately the well-endowed :-) library at Fermilab doesn't have a copy, so I'll post that when I get back to Pittsburgh. Steve
tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (07/10/90)
If a "study" bible is one which contains "helpful" notes and a general plan of reading and exegesis built in, I can't recommend it. (Not that you asked, but you might be interested.) Any bible which contains such canned material will constrain your or my reading of it more than we might think at first. It will in fact not be an AV or a NKJV but a "team-of-scholars-who-laced-a- bible-with-their-own-opiniions"V . I have an interlinear KJ/RV wide-margin and love it. (The marginal references to the Revised Version of 1888 are perhaps the best ever -- but I now barely use them in favor of my own _pencilled_ notes and a Young's Analytical Concordance. In fact I'd like to get rid of my Strong's but it was a gift and inscribed on the flyleaf, rats.) So what am I saying? If this is the Word of God you want as little between you and the words as possible: e.g., somebody else's built-in notes, an easy-to- read format, or narrow paperback margins preventing your own glossing. How can cost be an issue? You're going to read it and study in it every day for at least thirty years (until it wears out and you replace it). $60 for a wide-margin india-paper bible is nothing! Come on, it's the Word of God, right? Further discussion welcomed. TP
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (07/10/90)
In article <Jul.7.23.58.06.1990.3900@athos.rutgers.edu> dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) writes: >On an interesting note along these lines, I saw recently in a >local bookstore a Bible labelled as a Catholic edition with the >name "Tyndale" on the spine. >[I can certainly see why seeing Tyndale on a Catholic Bible would seem >ironic. However I suspect this was a Catholic edition of some modern >translation... > --clh] I believe that you probably refer to the Catholic edition of the Living Bible, which does indeed bear the imprimatur of the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, as well as the nihil obstat. Apparently at one time Tyndale was sensitive to the issue you raise, as this edition was originally published under the auspices of Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. of Huntington, Indiana, publishers of America's largest Catholic newspaper. (Early printings bore the OSV logo where Tyndale's appears now.) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (07/13/90)
In article <Jul.10.03.53.47.1990.12195@athos.rutgers.edu>, tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) writes: > If a "study" bible is one which contains "helpful" notes and a general plan > of reading and exegesis built in, I can't recommend it. (Not that you asked, > but you might be interested.) Any bible which contains such canned material > will constrain your or my reading of it more than we might think at first. > It will in fact not be an AV or a NKJV but a "team-of-scholars-who-laced-a- > bible-with-their-own-opiniions"V . > I have an interlinear KJ/RV wide-margin and love it. This is one of the more extreme versions I have ever seen of the view that the Word of God is somehow divorced from human language. The most extreme view would be for an American who didn't even know the Greek or Hebrew alphabets to buy original language texts and stare at the pages until God made known to him the meaning of these strange marks. What Mr. Price seems to intend is hardly less bizarre, and maybe even less logical. He would dispense with thousands of years of careful thought and study of the text, in favor of arbitrary "readings" of his own. (I suspect I'm exaggerating what he actually *does* -- but that's what it sounds like.) When you read an interlinear, if you *ever* look at the "pony" below the original texts, you are *relying* on the decisions of the translator. But these decisions all have a context -- the careful consideration of possible readings, and the selection among them by the translator. By dispensing with study notes, you are getting "pure opinion" and discarding any hope of knowing why the decisions were made. And even native speakers of the original languages (of whom there are none; modern Hebrew and Greek are of course related to the ancient tongues, but that too introduces problems) need the same context, at least unconsiously, when they "understand" an expression. Translation -- even interlinears -- is *irresponsible* unless it is a "team of scholars with opinions." And native speakers had better be as ready to listen to scholarship as English speakers should be if they wish to read the _Canterbury Tales_ and come out with any serious claim to understand what was written. Language is *inherently* a communal thing, and to ignore the relevant community is to MISUSE words. I'm more than willing (readers of some other threads may know :-)) to introduce questions relevant to language use that may not have been considered, or were not considered to my satsifaction, in traditional study. Mature use of study notes requires us to have some idea of the preconceptions of the scholars who wrote them, and be able to make allowances for these (perhaps most of all when we *agree* with them) -- but simply to toss out generations of serious and devoted biblical study smacks of both ignorance and arrogance. I hope I am just misconstruing what Mr. Price has said, but it sounds to me like he has a VERY dangerous "approach" to scripture, treating it more like the Delphic Oracle than the Word of God given to the people of God. -- Michael L. Siemon Inflict Thy promises with each m.siemon@ATT.COM Occasion of distress, ...!att!sfsup!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee [There may be some confusion here over the nature of annotations. These differ widely in different Bibles. The annotated Bibles that are best known in the evangelical community tend to have doctrinal notes. E.g. the Scofield reference Bible is given a good deal of credit for the spread of dispensational theology. At the other end, there are Bibles with rather minimal annotations, that act primarily as an extension of the translation, as in the Good News Bible, where now and then there are footnotes where some passage needed clarification that would have been too long to put in the text itself. The annotated versions I've used give historical, cultural, and literary background, but avoid making any specific interpretations of the text. This probably falls somewhere in the middle. The original comment was about notes with a reading plan and exegetical notes. I'm inclined to agree that it's probably a mistake to produce a Bible with builtin exegetical comments. As for other notes, I find it useful to have both kinds of Bible. When I'm doing certain kinds of study, it's useful to have a summary of scholarly views. If I'm away from my library, it's much more practical for these to be in the margin of the Bible than for me to have to bring along a shelf full of commentaries. However sometimes I also find it valuable to read one of the straight text versions, with no notes and no section headings, just to get the most direct possible impact of the text. As you may know, Protestant tradition has tended to be not to have notes. This is based on the concept of the "perspicacity of Scripture", which emphasizes that God does not require interpretation by the Church or scholars to speak through the Scripture. Of course few people take this so far as to say that we should do away with scholarly study of the Scripture. But one does not want the results of scholarship to become so pervasive that people confuse it with Scripture itself, or that they become afraid to react to Scripture for themselves. --clh]
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (07/13/90)
Thomas Price writes: >If a "study" bible is one which contains "helpful" notes and a general plan >of reading and exegesis built in, I can't recommend it. (Not that you asked, >but you might be interested.) Any bible which contains such canned material >will constrain your or my reading of it more than we might think at first. >It will in fact not be an AV or a NKJV but a "team-of-scholars-who-laced-a- >bible-with-their-own-opiniions"V . I don't agree with this at all. In the first place, *ANY* bible useful for study has textual notes-- otherwise, you have no idea what the textual background of what you are reading is, and you don't know when the translators are guessing. In the second place, the KJV *DOES* have notes-- exegetical notes, to boot. You just can't get a KJV which has them. In the third place, protestant though I am, I reject the notion that you can sit down by yourself with a unannotated bible and do useful studying. One thing I've discovered in watching fringe preachers on one hand and net.atheists on the other: interpretation outside the church is very frequently unguided, leading into old heresies and nonchristian religion at every turn. One would do well to remember that the KJV is a product of the anglican tradition, a compromise between puritan and romanish elements within the church of the day. The kind of study of which you speak is quite foreign to this environment. From my perspective, what you are advocating is the substituting of hidden prejudices in the translation and in your own mind for advice which is obviously such, and which one is free to criticize and even ignore. The peril is obvious, and in my opinion, usually realized. -- C. Wingate + "I bind unto myself today the strong name of the Trinity + by invocation of the same mangoe@cs.umd.edu + the Three in One, and One in Three." mimsy!mangoe +
randy@uutopia.dell.com (Randy Price) (07/13/90)
A very helpful translation is the Weust New Testament. It is unique in
that it uses as many English words as necessary to express a Greek
meaning. Most helpful with difficult passages, but its redundancy makes
it difficult for stretches of reading.
A word on study Bibles. These are more likely to be heavily influenced
with the theological opinion of the annotater. Ryrie and Scofield are
obvious examples. Try to find out the underlying theological position,
before acquiring any study Bible.
Theology has an effect on translations as well. The committee who
translated the NIV had both Calvinist and Arminian
theologian/translators. The result is interesting, _e. g._ everytime the
phrase sinful nature is used there is a footnote stating the actual
Greek word is flesh.
I have read of the existance of a John Weslet version of the KJV with
more than 1200 corrections. (lots of sinful nature=flesh, i bet).
Has anyone ever seen this, perhaps in a seminary library?
Randy
________________________________________________________
Randy Price randy@uutopia.dell.com
The opinions are my own, not my employers, cognito.
"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have
removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift
of God?"
Thomas Jeffersonckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/13/90)
In article <Jul.10.03.53.47.1990.12195@athos.rutgers.edu> tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) writes: >If a "study" bible is one which contains "helpful" notes and a general plan >of reading and exegesis built in, I can't recommend it. [ a bunch deleted about how "study bibles" are bad..] For the Catholic, the best study bible that I am aware of is "The Navarre Bible." Actually, only the four Gosples and Acts has been completed. On the top third of each page is the is the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition [1965-66]. The next section of the page contains the official Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate), first translated by St. Jerome in the 300's using now-lost texts. The final part of each page contains insightful notes and commentary the verses presented. I highly recommend it. chris -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) (07/13/90)
Thanks for the various texts of John 1. A notable omission was the genuine KJV text which, to my taste, has not been bettered by anything else. It has a better rhythm (and this is poetry not prose) and the slightly unusual word ordering (putting the word "not" at the end, for example) does a lot to point out the message: He was in the world, and the world was made by him, And the world knew him not. He came unto his own And his own received him not. (Pardon small errors, I am quoting from memory). However, my question is this. This KJV text was based on even earlier translations. Does anyone have access to the text of the Tyndale or Coverdale versions which they would care to post?
cattanac@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (07/16/90)
chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes: >Thanks for the various texts of John 1. A notable omission was the genuine KJV >text which, to my taste, has not been bettered by anything else. It has a >better rhythm (and this is poetry not prose) and the slightly unusual word >ordering (putting the word "not" at the end, for example) does a lot to point >out the message: > He was in the world, and the world was made by him, > And the world knew him not. > He came unto his own > And his own received him not. >(Pardon small errors, I am quoting from memory). >However, my question is this. This KJV text was based on even earlier >translations. Does anyone have access to the text of the Tyndale or Coverdale >versions which they would care to post? Sorry for the omission. In my collecting, I consider newer translations to sort of subsume the older ones. More of a method for keeping my costs down than anything else, hence when I buy a New Jerusalem Bible, I can forgo the old one and I can pass on an RSV as I have a NRSV. I mention this to explain that I left off the KJV because I quoted the NKJV. Below is the King James text: JOH 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. JOH 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. JOH 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. JOH 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. JOH 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. I know that someone sells the 1611 version of the KJV (mispellings :-) and all), I don't have ISBN, etc. -- -catt (cattanac@cs.uiuc.edu) Carthage must be destroyed.
tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (07/16/90)
>the text. This probably falls somewhere in the middle. The original >comment was about notes with a reading plan and exegetical notes. I'm >inclined to agree that it's probably a mistake to produce a Bible with >builtin exegetical comments. You will be glad to know that's what I meant. The Interlinear AV/RV I use has substantial _translator's_ notes which are invaluable. Also I would again plug a Young's concordance for getting to understand the intended conceptual referent of various words in the original Greek and Hebrew _in_context_. >-- but simply to toss out generations of serious and devoted biblical >study smacks of both ignorance and arrogance. >scholarly study of the Scripture. But one does not want the results >of scholarship to become so pervasive that people confuse it with >Scripture itself, or that they become afraid to react to Scripture for >themselves. I take vague exception to the first quote above. I am called to be a disciple of Joshua of Nazareth, not of Scofield or any other serious and devoted bible student. A direct relationship between me and any expositor is mediation on his part between me and God -- and there can be only one mediator, Jesus Christ. Why do you think that the idea of priesthood and the hierarchy of the Catholic church, unknown to the first century Christians, is so abhorrent? (Or maybe you didn't know that it was. I should apologize for speaking like this.) The body of Christ is a nation of kings and priests. The distinction between "clergy" and "laity" -- and such monstrosities as "ordination" -- are unscriptural. TP
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (07/16/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.06.42.1990.12150@athos.rutgers.edu>, chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes... >However, my question is this. This KJV text was based on even earlier >translations. Does anyone have access to the text of the Tyndale or Coverdale >versions which they would care to post? I only have access to excerpts of these (although the local bookstore does have Tyndale's New Testament in stock). The Norton Anthology of English Literature Vol. 1 has excerpts from the 16th and 17th C. English translations in a side-by-side context; if I remember, I can bring that in sometime and type the contrasts. I think the passage was from one of the prophets, but I'm not sure. On a related note, does anybody know if there is an addition of the Douay-Rheims Bible in print currently? -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont Consulting and dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu production work. Free Estimates. dhosek@ymir.bitnet uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147
cms@dragon.uucp (07/16/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.06.42.1990.12150@athos.rutgers.edu>, chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes: > Thanks for the various texts of John 1. A notable omission was the genuine KJV > text which, to my taste, has not been bettered by anything else. It has a > better rhythm (and this is poetry not prose) and the slightly unusual word > ordering (putting the word "not" at the end, for example) does a lot to point > out the message: > He was in the world, and the world was made by him, > And the world knew him not. > He came unto his own > And his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. > (Pardon small errors, I am quoting from memory). Very good. > However, my question is this. This KJV text was based on even earlier > translations. Does anyone have access to the text of the Tyndale or Coverdale > versions which they would care to post? No, but I do have a copy of the Douay Bible (Douay-Rheims): He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, he gave power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. For what it's worth, the publisher's note indicates that the Douay-Rheims is more accurate than any modern Bible because it is based on ancient texts, no longer extant, captured by Saint Jerome in his Vulgate; Douay is a translation of the Vulgate with the original languages diligently compared. I don't agree with that: Having compared the Jerusalem Bible with the New Jerusalem Bible, I can attest that translations from the original languages seem best, although I see the author's point, and it's a valid one. In fact, the King James Bible itself was not an original translation, as you mentioned above, but rather borrowed heavily from the Douay. My Jerome Commentary notes that when the King James first came out some contemporaries thought the English was barbaric. I don't know much about the Tyndale version except that its author was an open partisan of Luther, the translation was theological slanted, and the notes virulently anti-Catholic. Not my kinda guy. The Coverdale Bible, unlike Tyndale, was not a translation from the original languages; it was apparently translated from Dutch. (= German, i.e., Luther's translation) and from Latin. The Great Bible combined the two by joining Tyndale's unpublished notes and revised by Coverdale. Every church in England used this Bible for a while; its psalter was the one used in the Book of Common Prayer. The Geneva Bible was a revision of the Tyndale and the Great Bible; it was also Calvinistic and anti-Catholic in tone. The Bishops Bible was a revision of the Great Bible in the light of the Geneva Bible; it toned down the Calvinism. The Authorized Version (King James) was a revision of the Bishops Bible and, as noted above, borrowed from the Douay-Rheims, besides earlier editions. Revised Version was the first major revision of the King James in 250 years. A conservative revision of the American Standard Version, with readings preferred by American scholars, became the New American Standard. The Revised Standard Version is a revision of the King James. Hope that helps. I gleaned this from Jerome's Commentary. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
cms@dragon.uucp (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.03.05.14.1990.15078@athos.rutgers.edu>, dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) writes: > In article <Jul.13.05.06.42.1990.12150@athos.rutgers.edu>, chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes... >>However, my question is this. This KJV text was based on even earlier >>translations. Does anyone have access to the text of the Tyndale or Coverdale >>versions which they would care to post? > > I only have access to excerpts of these (although the local > bookstore does have Tyndale's New Testament in stock). The Norton > Anthology of English Literature Vol. 1 has excerpts from the 16th > and 17th C. English translations in a side-by-side context; if I > remember, I can bring that in sometime and type the contrasts. I > think the passage was from one of the prophets, but I'm not sure. > > On a related note, does anybody know if there is an addition of > the Douay-Rheims Bible in print currently? I have a copy that I bought off the shelf in a Catholic bookstore. It's entitled: The Holy Bible Douay Rheims Version Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner A.D. 1749-1752. The Approbation by James Cardinal Gibbons (Archbishop of Baltimore, 1899) calls it the Catholic Bible, which is an accurate reprint of the Rheims and Douay edition with Dr. Challoner's Notes. Let's see, further notes say that this Bible was photographically reproduced from the 1899 edition of the John Murphy Company, Baltimore, Maryland....first printed by TAN Books and Publishers in 1971. Ah! Order directly from: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc. P.O. Box 424 Rockford, Illinois 61105 -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
murphy@mips.com (Mike Murphy) (07/20/90)
First, thanks to the moderator for a good overview of different Bible translations. My question is about the Amplified version. One of my parallel Bibles includes the Amplified New Testament (I'm not sure if a corresponding O.T. exists); the distinguishing mark of the Amplified is that it tries to explain the nuances of the original Greek by presenting multiple meanings. I don't have the text with me to give an example, but the text ends up being filled with lots of cases where one word is translated into "A or B or C". What I was wondering is how good this translation is considered to be by Greek scholars (for study purposes, as most would agree it is rather convoluted for devotional readings). -- mike murphy [I've never seen it quoted in scholarly work. That's not a final answer, but it is at least some indication. --clh]