A final major issue that needs to be considered is the relationship between the Greek NT text and its translation. Since this book is created for English speakers and due to the rich heritage of the English Bible, English Bible translations will occupy this chapter’s focus. We shall begin by offering a brief history of the English Bible, followed by a consideration of the issues involved in choosing a base text for translation, as well as how textual variation is displayed within Bible translations. The chapter concludes with a brief overview of translation theory and makes some suggestive remarks toward how to choose a good Bible translation.
There are two major phases of Bible translation in the history of the English Bible. The first phase is marked by the rise of vernacular translations that in many ways supported the efforts of the Protestant Reformation, which included William Tyndale (1526), Miles Coverdale (1535), Thomas Matthew (finished by a man named John Rogers, it was the completion of the OT of Tyndale’s Bible, 1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568). These English versions were used in various ways, especially Tyndale’s, in the translation of the Authorized (or King James) Version (AV/KJV) of the Bible (1611). Due to its numerous excellent qualities, its strong support, and its heavy reliance upon the remarkable translational work of Tyndale, the AV became the translation that dominated this first phase of the English Bible’s history. The second major turning point is marked by the rise of modern English versions, beginning around the end of the nineteenth century with the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version.
What caused the turning point in the nineteenth century? The simple answer is textual criticism. By this time a number of early manuscripts had been discovered (most significantly, codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), and Westcott and Hort and other textual critics had made substantial advances in developing canons for weighing this textual evidence, according to both external and internal criteria. These advancements, as well as the previous pioneering translation efforts of individuals like John Wesley (1775), Noah Webster (1833), and Henry Alford (1869), set the stage for the formation in 1870 of a committee that hoped to revise the AV. The committee was composed of British and American scholars from a wide variety of denominations. The Revised Version (RV) of the NT was published in 1881, the OT in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1895. The NT essentially followed the text of Westcott and Hort (see ch. 11). This updated text ended up causing controversy for two major but different reasons: (1) it moved certain cherished texts (e.g., 1 John 5:7) to the margins, thus apparently “changing” the Bible, and (2) the translation of the original Greek language into English was more rigid (“literal”; see below) than the AV had been, and so the Bible had supposedly lost some of its sacred grandeur. The American version of the RV was published as the American Standard Version (ASV) in 1901, without the Apocrypha. It met with more popularity than its British counterpart. Although these translations ultimately failed in their attempts to replace the AV, they did succeed in paving the way for the numerous modern versions that emerged in the twentieth century and continue into the twenty-first century. Initially, this translational project provided incentive for a number of personal translations in the first half of the twentieth century, such as those of James Moffatt (1903), J. B. Phillips (1958), and Gerrit Verkuyl (known as the Berkeley Translation; 1959). Translational projects were slow in developing, however, all the way up through the early twentieth century, due to the admiration, even veneration, that many still had for the AV, which had been used almost exclusively in English-speaking congregations for centuries.
These personal translations, however, gave new impetus to the possibility of success for committee-based translations, often sponsored by Bible societies, in the second half of the twentieth century. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) — which was a revision of the ASV that began in 1937 by a committee now known as the National Council of the Churches of Christ, and was finally fully published (i.e., both OT and NT) in 1951 — is by far the most significant committee-produced Bible translation since it resulted in numerous later projects that sought to imitate its efforts. This translation was based upon the Masoretic Hebrew text (with some supplementation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, esp. in Isaiah) of the OT and upon the 16th (1936) and 17th (1941) editions of Nestle’s Greek NT, while making reference to other Greek texts as well. In terms of translation, one of the major revisions in this version involved an updating of some Old English forms of expression (e.g., thou, thee) to more current English vernacular (at least for 1950). Although it initially met with mixed reactions (some were uncomfortable with the way that theology was expressed in the translation), the RSV was the predominant English translation for the next twenty-five years until the NIV was published. The committee, continuing to update the translation, especially regarding gendered language, published a thoroughly revised version in 1989 called the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). This version continued to weed out remaining antiquated English expressions, seeking a fully updated English vocabulary and syntax while employing the most recent Greek text available, UBSGNT3 (which is similar to NA26), with knowledge of the soon-to-be-released 4th edition.
In addition to several advances in Europe, the Lockman Foundation — a conservative American Bible society — was especially concerned that in these newer translations the original virtues of the ASV were being lost. Some were convinced that this was a good thing, but the Lockman Foundation apparently was not. They embarked therefore upon a translation project designed to revise the original 1901 ASV. The final product was published as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) in 1971 (revised in 1995 under the title the New American Standard Bible 1995 Update [NAU]). The translation itself sought to be intentionally literal, resulting in a very useful translation for personal Bible study and for students of the original languages but one less readable as a modern English version.
Another important committee-based translation published around this time was Today’s English Version (TEV), now known as the Good News Bible (GNB) or Good News Translation (GNT). This translational product was spearheaded by the linguist and Bible translator Eugene Nida, who sought to apply a number of translation principles that he and his associates had developed to emphasize translating the biblical meaning into a modern cultural equivalent (see below). The project was sponsored by the American Bible Society, and the entire Bible was published in 1976 (with an edition including the Apocrypha in 1979). The OT was translated from Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (3rd ed. 1937) by a small body of translators. The NT was translated by Robert Bratcher from UBSGNT1 (in that sense, the NT of the TEV is a personal translation). Reflecting a similar translation philosophy and using Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977) in translating the OT and UBSGNT3 and 4 for the NT, the Contemporary English Version (CEV) was published in 1995, providing a more recent translation that was conceived along similar lines as the GNT. Both translations met with mixed reception and were criticized for inaccuracy in translation (which really meant difference in translation methodology, in most cases — see below). Nevertheless, due to the support of the Bible societies and its ease for reading, the GNB/GNT especially has been widely used.
The New International Version (NIV) was yet another extremely significant translation project that was completed during this time. This version grew out of the concern of a number of American denominations to have an all-purpose Bible, similar to the AV, but one that was translated into contemporary English. Being displeased with the RSV, a committee was drawn up in 1965 to begin working on this version, which hoped to recruit the help of numerous scholars, both from Europe and North America. According to the preface, this conservative committee of translators is “united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form.” After overcoming numerous difficulties in what turned out to be a very slow, complex, and difficult process (esp. due to the number of people involved), the whole Bible was published in 1978. It was based upon the Masoretic Hebrew text and a critical Greek text, very similar to the UBSGNT and NA texts in use today. Essentially, it offered a conservative alternative to the RSV while (bravely!) breaking away, in many places, from the traditional renderings of the AV. The NIV committee attempted to publish a gender-inclusive edition in the 1990s, but their efforts were thwarted at least in the United States by some vocal opponents who decried such efforts as being contrary to the purpose of the translation, until they finally were able to publish Today’s New International Version (TNIV) in 2005. This again met with strong opposition in some circles. So in 2011 the NIV committee issued a revised version that utilized gender-inclusive language. This is now the standard NIV translation.
In 2001 the English Standard Version (ESV) was published. This translation is a revision of the RSV (whose copyright was bought by a conservative publisher), with an estimated 6 percent changed by a group of conservative scholars to correct it doctrinally. As a result of its strong roots in the RSV, this version is more literal than the NIV (which had been criticized by some for being too “loose” or “interpretive”) yet not as wooden and literalistic as the NASB/NAU. This literal translation and conservative commitment of the revisers has been a significant draw for some pastors and teachers emerging from particular theological contexts.
In 2010 for the NT and in 2011 for the entire Bible, the Common English Bible (CEB) was published. The product of the work of 120 different translators and scholars, this version attempts to provide a readable Bible for contemporary readers. It is mostly designed for those who are more theologically mainstream than the readers of the ESV, and who are perhaps less familiar with traditional theological language. It fully embraces nongendered language, as well as making more relevant (not always successfully) technical theological language.
A final group of projects worth noting is the recent development of web-based translations. The most substantial of these translations is the NET Bible (NET stands for New English Translation). The most noteworthy feature of this Bible is its extensive (though sometimes repetitive) footnotes related to translational, grammatical, text-critical, historical, and theological issues. It is especially designed for those familiar with the original languages and textual criticism. It is available in both print and electronic forms (the electronic edition can be accessed for free at http://net.bible.org/home.php). As with the NIV and ESV, the NET Bible is distinguished by the fact that its translators are from conservative evangelical backgrounds, consistently reflected in the study notes. The translation itself, as with the NIV, breaks away from the traditional translations of the AV in many places and often reflects a quite interpretive translation philosophy (see below).
In the OT the textual basis of translations has remained fairly fixed. The Masoretic text has been used as the basis for virtually every Western translation since its composition in the medieval period (the exceptions being Roman Catholic Bibles based upon the Latin Vulgate and Orthodox Bibles based upon the LXX). The Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in Isaiah, have been taken into consideration in newer translations, but the Masoretic tradition continues to be the major basis for Hebrew texts and the modern translations based upon them. This distinguishes the OT text from what has become the dominant practice in NT studies, since the Masoretic Hebrew text is a single continuous text whereas the text typically used in NT scholarship has been an eclectic text in one form or another.
There has been much more sustained debate over the Greek text that is to be used as the basis for producing editions and translations. As we discussed in chapter 11, in a race to print the first printed Greek edition of the NT before Cardinal Ximénes de Cisneros could publish his Complutensian NT (printed in 1514, but not formally published until 1522), Erasmus published his Greek text in 1516, followed by a revision in 1519 and three additional revisions before he died. Erasmus’s text was based on a few late Byzantine manuscripts (essentially two, with reference to three or four others that dated to around the twelfth century). Some final portions of Revelation were not available in the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus had available to him so he actually translated the Latin texts that he had back into Greek. It was from Erasmus’s text that the AV NT was translated in 1611. Erasmus’s text became known as the “Received Text” or Textus Receptus due to a comment made in the preface of the Elzevir printed edition of the Greek NT (1633) that Erasmus’s text was “received” by all. And this text was received as the text for NT scholarship until the nineteenth century, especially with the publication of Westcott and Hort’s edition (1881), when the textual basis for NT study and translation began to shift toward texts grounded in a much earlier tradition of manuscripts, for the most part representing the Alexandrian text-type.
This shift was due to two major developments: (1) the publication of the fourth- and fifth-century codices (esp. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and (2) the discovery of the Greek papyri (which were not fully appreciated until later). Constantine Tischendorf (see ch. 4) was extremely instrumental in this process, editing more Greek manuscripts than any single person before or after him. Westcott and Hort reflected these developments in their establishment of a system of textual criticism designed to support their production of an eclectic text (see chs. 7, 11). So scholars of the late nineteenth century, then, began to draw upon these developments in the production of their translations.
These developments resulted in the use of essentially four kinds of Greek texts (on the development of Greek editions, see ch. 11) in the translation of the NT, apart from the few dissenting scholars who chose to remain reliant upon the Textus Receptus. First, the RV and ASV, as well as Phillips, relied primarily upon Westcott and Hort’s edition. Second, Hermann von Soden’s text was used by Moffatt in his translation of the NT. Nestle’s eclectic text, revised by Kurt and (then later) Barbara Aland and others, is the third major text that has been used. The latest revisions of this text in the NA form are the basis for most of the modern translations. The RSV seems to have used the 16th/17th editions of this text. The NRSV used NA26/UBSGNT3. The NASB is translated from NA23. A fourth category is occupied by a few others who saw it necessary to create their own eclectic texts for translation. These include translations like the New English Bible (1964), which also included a publication of the Greek text that was created and used, along with notes on textual decisions.
While most scholars and translators saw it necessary to incorporate the discovery of early manuscripts and supporting text-critical principles in producing eclectic texts based upon them, a few scholars insisted upon the importance of retaining the Textus Receptus as the basis for NT study and translation. Some have gone as far as to suggest that the AV is still the most suitable English translation (as noted in previous chapters). It is surprising in some ways that people continue to hold this position in light of the fact that the basis for this text is so limited and evidence for the Syrian textual tradition (upon which these translations are based) dating before the fourth century is lacking (for further treatment of the textual issues involved here, see chs. 5 and 9). In our view, this major underlying textual distinction makes the AV as well as the New King James Version (an attempt to bring the AV into a more modern form of English) inferior to the modern English versions since, at least in the NT and at the level of textual support, these translations are based upon an inferior manuscript tradition. Nevertheless, as Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss remark, “the sum total of manuscript differences still make up a relatively small percentage of the biblical text and seldom affect important points of doctrine.”1
Another issue that impacts translation is whether textual variation is presented and, if it is presented, how it should be noted. Most translations use a combination of brackets and footnotes to highlight (esp. major) divergences in the manuscript tradition. John 7:53–8:11, the episode of the woman caught in adultery (on this passage see ch. 12), provides a suitable case study. The ESV has a bracketed comment above chapter 8 that reads, “[The earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53–8:11],” with a footnote that reads, “Some manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11; others add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text.” Similarly, the NAU contains a footnote that reads, “Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53–8:11.” The NET Bible has a thorough (several paragraphs) — some might argue, overboard — discussion of the problem. This becomes a rather interesting translational decision. NT textual scholars almost universally believe that this passage is not original, but translators leave it in anyway. Why? There is no compelling reason for doing so, except for tradition and a (perhaps misguided) desire not to cause possible upset among those who are textually not well informed. We recognize that the versification was added during medieval times and has now been relatively standardized in church and academic usage. However, we do not think that this is sufficient reason for including the pericope and providing a footnote that indicates the reason for the move from John 7:52 to 8:12. The footnote is also a place to possibly include the deleted passage and to explain that even though later church tradition has retained it (esp. in some later manuscripts), as have earlier translations, it is best not to include it in the text of the NT and hence in the translation. The same is true of other major textual problems, such as the long ending of Mark (16:9-20).
Once an appropriate base text is established, including if and how to represent textual variation within a translation, issues related to how the original or source language (the language that a text is translated from) is best transferred into the receptor language (the language that a text is translated into) must be addressed. Some theories focus more on rendering the form of the text in translation while others focus more on rendering its function. Theories that emphasize carrying over as much of the form of the original language as possible are often referred to as formal or literal equivalence translations. As much as possible, these translations attempt to preserve the tone, vocabulary, syntax, and style of the original language within the receptor language. Formal equivalence translations include the NASB, NAU, KJV/NKJV, RSV/ESV, and NRSV (in order from more to less formal). On the other side of the spectrum, dynamic or functional equivalence translations focus on conveying the function of the original language in translations. In other words, they attempt to understand the meaning of the original language and then to render that meaning with an appropriate linguistic equivalent in the receptor language. These include versions like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), NET, NIV, TNIV, New Living Translation (NLT), CEV, and The Message (in order from less to more functional). Rather than understanding Bible translations as either strictly formal or functional, we notice a scale of more and less formal/functional Bible translations:
|
Formal → → → → → → → Functional |
|
NASB, NAU, KJV/NKJV, RSV/ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NET, NIV, TNIV, CEB, NLT, GNT, CEV, The Message |
Translations on the far right side of the spectrum are often considered paraphrases. Paraphrases are typically viewed as a very close interpretation of the text rather than a translation in the proper sense of the term. Nevertheless, most of these (excluding, for example, The Message) are still usually guided by finding linguistic-cultural equivalents for the original language in the receptor language and so should not be quickly dismissed as useless for Bible reading and study (and the term paraphrase should probably not be used pejoratively as a way of dismissing such a translation). A further examination of functional equivalence theory will reveal how these principles are intended to operate.
Dynamic equivalence theory is a fairly recent development and should be understood against the background of the more traditional formal equivalence view. The most significant figure in contributing to the movement away from the traditional model by a number of Bible translators is Eugene A. Nida. In 1964 he published a book that attempted to consolidate work that he had been doing in translation for the previous twenty years entitled Toward a Science of Translating. This was followed by a number of other works by Nida and his colleagues, especially Charles Taber and Jan de Waard. In these publications, Nida assumed a linguistic model that is similar to the linguist Noam Chomsky’s early work (e.g., Syntactic Structures, published in 1957), which posits two levels of linguistic structure: deep structure and surface structure. Deep structure refers to universal meaning, whereas surface structure concerns how universal meaning is expressed in a variety of different languages. Languages are merely the surface structure realization of the underlying deep structure of meaning that all languages attempt to communicate in their own ways. Nida was critical, therefore, of the traditional theory’s attempt to translate the surface structure of one language (Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) into the surface structure of another language (e.g., English). What Nida proposed is that the translator first determine how the original language is expressing deep structure through its surface structure. In Nida’s terminology, the translator was to find the kernel sentence or underlying meaning in the original language: that is, the deep structure meaning that the surface structure is communicating. Then the translator is to ask how that kernel sentence in the original language is best expressed using the surface structure of the receptor language. For example, the clause “God is love,” expressed literally in the original language, might be translated “God loves” in the receptor language.
Nida’s classic example for illustrating the helpfulness of his theory is Mark 1:4, often translated literally as “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (NAU). According to Nida, “baptism of repentance” and “forgiveness of sins,” while conveying a literal expression of the Greek language, have little significance for the contemporary reader. He sees the verse broken into five kernel sentences: (1) John preached something (the following phrases fill out the content), (2) John baptizes people, (3) people repent, (4) God forgives something, and (5) the people sin. From these five kernels, he suggests the translation: “John preached, ‘Repent and be baptized, so that God will forgive the evil you have done.’ ”2
Many would disagree with Nida’s assumption that transferability of meaning is helpful or possible in translation. Particularly problematic are instances in which the meaning of a passage is debatable. This model of translation requires more interpretation, increasing the possibility that informed Bible readers may disagree with the underlying interpretation that is reflected in a translation. The more interpretation that a translation has, the greater margin there is for error. On the other hand, all translation involves interpretation. No translation is completely literal. Such a rendering would be unintelligible.
Another issue that may factor into method in Bible translation and may be an important consideration for some in choosing a translation of the Bible is the issue of gender and translation. A number of recent translations have sought to use gender-inclusive language. The NRSV and the Revised English Bible (revision of the New English Bible) were the first to do this. Several translations followed suit, most recently the TNIV and now NIV since 2011 and the CEB. This strategy to bring the Bible’s language into more contemporary manners of expression that do not marginalize women through the language used has caused serious concern in some quarters. Besides tradition or downright prejudice, one reason for this concern is that the biblical languages are grammatically gendered languages and to make translations gender-inclusive may be difficult or even thought to be untrue to the original (grammatical gender means that some languages indicate the gender of certain words, usually but not always following natural gender categories). Changing gendered language may also seem to prohibit people who genuinely desire to come to terms with the world in which the original text was composed. However, even though readers need to know that the original languages were grammatically gendered (and those studying the original languages are aware of this), we believe that the primary purpose of a translation is to communicate the message of the Bible to its readers, and so we believe that translations should be gender-inclusive where appropriate to reflect the inclusive nature of what is being discussed. Thus use of “brothers and sisters” is appropriate to reflect a word that in previous translations would have been rendered “brothers,” if Paul is speaking to a church congregation that includes both men and women.
Which is the best translation then? We think this is the wrong question to ask. A better way to think about choosing a Bible translation is in terms of function. Before the dawn of the AV, in which a single Bible translation was standardized and used for most purposes, people were accustomed to hearing the Great Bible (1539) read in public and using the Geneva Bible (1560) for private study. Our day and age is similar in the sense that there are multiple Bibles to choose from, which can each helpfully serve a different function in the believer’s life. Translations such as the NASB, NAU, and RSV/ESV serve as helpful Bibles for detailed study and analysis, especially when working with the original languages. More mediating translations, such as the NIV and HCSB, function as good all-purpose Bibles. As we move closer to the right of the above formal-functional scale, translations like the CEB and GNT are perhaps better for easy, smooth reading of large portions of the text. Translations at the far right end of the spectrum may help as references when one desires a fresh angle on the text or is unclear about its meaning, but these will be less close to the original and so the reader must keep in mind that the margin for interpretation here remains greater.
The purpose of this chapter has been to introduce the major issues and relationships between establishing the Greek text and translating it into English. After a quick survey of the development of the English Bible, we have noted the differing textual bases between the AV tradition of the English Bible, which relied upon the Textus Receptus, and modern translations, which are typically based upon eclectic texts that incorporate the earliest and highest quality manuscripts available today. We have also briefly considered issues related to the representation of textual variation, before finally outlining an introduction to translation theory and some comments on issues to look for in translations.
Beekman, John, and Kathleen Callow. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.
Bruce, F. F. History of the Bible in English. 3rd ed. Guildford: Lutterworth, 1979.
Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
Daniel, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Fee, Gordon D., and Mark L. Strauss. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
Hill, Harriet. The Bible at Cultural Crossroads: From Translation to Communication. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2006.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Nida, Eugene A., and William D. Reyburn. Meaning Across Cultures. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1981.
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Porter, Stanley E. “Modern Translations.” Pages 134-61 in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible. Ed. John Rogerson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
———. How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.
Waard, Jan de, and Eugene A. Nida. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Nelson, 1986.
White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.
1. Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Translations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 113-14.
2. Cf. Eugene A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 66; Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 51-52.