Top Ten Bible Versions: Final Thoughts (For Now)
06/08/2007 10:32 Filed in: Faith & Reason
My Own Journey. I've been collecting English translations of the Bible for over two decades and now own a number approaching ninety different translations. Believe it or not, there are still quite a few in circulation that I still do not have (but I have a list!). Two of my most recent acquisitions include an original 1959 edition of Verkuyl's Berkeley Version of the BIble (the first edition with the Old Testament, and the precursor to the edition I reviewed) and the New Testament Transline which was sent to me by Wayne Leman. It may be the most literal modern translation I've seen so far.
Even after taking original language courses in seminary and working these texts into my study practices, I still publicly teach from English translations. I do this for two reasons. A common translation serves as a better common ground base between myself and those in my classes, although I can certainly supplement with my own translation as I need to. Further, my language skills are not good enough yet. I've tried it, and while I can certainly prepare for a focus text, as soon as a question is raised about another passage and we turn there, I run into a word I either do no know or can't remember, and so it's not yet practical for me to use the Greek and/or Hebrew exclusively.
Although I've always celebrated the variety of translations available, up until two or three years ago, I was squarely in the formal equivalent camp in regard to what I used as a primary translation both in public and in private. It was primarily the needs of my audience--the result of my experience teaching both high school students at a private school for about five years and my long term experience teaching adults at church--that made me change my translational tool belt around a good bit. Although I personally preferred more literal translations, especially the NASB, I was never the kind of person I occasionally run into who thought that dynamic/functional equivalence was an illegitimate method of translation. However, like a lot of people, I naively assumed that literalness was always equated with a greater degree of accuracy. However, it was in my experience teaching that I realized if a literal translation does not communicate the message of the original--if the readers or hearers cannot understand it because of its literalness--it is not more accurate; it is less so. I've tried to demonstrate this in a number of my posts with my favorite being "Grinding Another Man's Grain" (also see "This Is Why" and "Literal Is Not More Accurate If It's Unintelligible").
Since I began this series, my own practices have changed somewhat. When I began writing it, I was attempting to make the HCSB my primary translation in public and in private with the TNIV, NLT, and NASB in secondary roles. The HCSB and TNIV have switched places a good bit in much of my use over the last few months. In private I have gone back to taking notes in my wide-margin NASB because I haven't found a suitable replacement edition in any of the more modern translations that I use. This is too bad because I can't legitimately call any translation a primary one for myself until I can take the edition with which I've written my notes in private and teach from that same Bible in public. Nevertheless, when I am asked, I currently only recommend three translations for primary Bibles: the TNIV, NLT and the HCSB.
An Admitted Bias. I admit that I am biased toward newer translations for primary Bibles because they represent not only the latest scholarship, but usually the most current English--although certainly both factors are on a relative scale. That doesn't mean that the older translations are useless. I simply can't recommend them for anything other that secondary purposes--to be read in parallel with a primary translation or to be read for devotional use.
I freely admit that I cannot recommend something like the King James Version, as prominent as it is in Christian and literary history, as a primary Bible. I cannot recommend it for two reasons. The first is that it is based on a deficient textual tradition. This is where my bias for the most recent scholarship comes into play. And although I respect those who hold to a favorable tradition toward the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text, I would politely disagree. In my experience, most of those with whom I've come into contact who favor a TR position often are simply using it as an excuse to justify King James Onlyism. Otherwise, why wouldn't they use the New King James Version? This is certainly not always the case, but I find a lot of people who say they favor the TR, but claim the NKJV as corrupt and practically put the KJV on its own level of inerrancy. Really, I have little patience with this, and simply cannot take such positions seriously.
Secondly, I cannot recommend the KJV to the average church member simply because of my experience in teaching the Bible to adults over the last two decades. Over and over I've seen people struggle with the KJV, often failing to understand what they just read, and stumbling through the text when trying to read it aloud. In many cases I've given these people a modern translations and watched light bulbs go off over their head as suddenly the Bible has new relevance. And I don't know of a worse Bible to give to a child than the KJV. In the end, it simply comes down to a communication issue. I want to see God's Word communicated as clearly as possible
For those who appreciate the KJV on a historical and literary level, we have no argument. I agree that it's place is secure in those regards.
The Bible Wars. It genuinely saddens and even distresses me that adherents of modern translations would fight over which version is supposedly better. I am appalled at some of the rhetoric thrown around toward certain translations often as a smokescreen for promoting another version. Yes, there are certainly translations I recommend over others--I've admitted that. But one thing I've tried very hard to do on this blog is not to promote one version at the expense of another. I really do believe in reading the Bible in parallel. Bible versions are different simply because they often have different goals and purposes. I also acknowledge that certain translations simply connect and resonate with individuals. Sometimes it is a personality factor (and Bible translations have personalities of their own) and sometimes it is for other reasons.
There is some good news though. Sometime near the end of 2006, I set up Technorati and Google search RSS feeds on a number of particular translations. I especially targeted translations such as the TNIV and NLT which I thought had been unfairly attacked more than any other versions. On this blog I went on the offensive promoting these translations, and on the greater blogosphere, I went on the defensive defending them whenever I thought they were given unfair treatment. The good news is that I see fewer and fewer of these kinds of negative posts. When I first started looking for them, I saw multiple posts every week. Since they often made the same charges over and over again, I began compiling a file of my own arguments so that I wouldn't have to retype so much information every time. I can honestly say now that sometimes entire weeks go by, and I really don't find that much to address. It's certainly still out there, and I don't think a ceasefire has been called in the Bible wars, but maybe we've seen a lull in the fighting and things will continue to die down a bit.
It's really pointless in my opinion. I mean who would go into Baskin Robins and try to convince people only to get chocolate mint when there are 30 other flavors to choose from? However, most of the folks who do this kind of thing with Bibles honestly think they are correct in their arguments. They somehow think they are defending God's honor and God's Word. The nonsense about the TNIV removing the masculinity of the Bible is just that--nonsense. All modern translations have moved away in some degree from masculine universals. Even the ESV, the most conservative of the new translations, has made a number of changes in this regard from the RSV. In many instances "sons" has been changed to "children" and "a man" has been changed to "anyone." These changes are certainly legitimate, but I don't think it's fair to label the TNIV or the NLT as translations that remove masculinity when even the most conservative of the modern translations (and not just the ESV, but also the NASB95) have done the same thing to at least some extent.
Further, the most recent argument I hear being thrown around is that dynamic/functional equivalent translations violate the command in Rev 22:18-19 to not add to or take away. Such an assertion is problematic on multiple levels. First, the actual command really applies only to the original manuscripts (this is why I favor newer translations because they are based on the most up to date editions of our Greek and Hebrew texts that are the results of very strong convictions to represent the original words of the biblical writers as accurately as possible). But if someone is just counting by numbers, every translation adds or takes away words to communicate the message of the original. Further, to say that translations like the TNIV or NLT violate Rev 22:18-19 would also eliminate the first major translation of the Bible, the Septuagint. The Septuagint itself does not follow one strict model of translation, and the student of the LXX will discover that some portions are quite literal and others are quite dynamic, even paraphrased at times. Are we going to level restrictions that would even eliminate the translation that the apostles, New Testament writers, and Jesus himself used? I think not. Really, to make such a claim as this reveals little more than a lack of knowledge for translation and translation history, and it serves to simply scare the average church member and cause unnecessary mistrust of certain versions.
The Current State. There seems to be a Bible for everyone, doesn't there? In the end this should be something to celebrate because it allows God's Word to communicate to the largest number of people possible. But do we have too many? The claim is often made that English speakers have countless translations which come only at great effort and expense while there are still some language groups that do not have the Bible at all in their language. This may be true. Our culture seems to find a way to bring gluttony into everything, and so perhaps we do so as well with Bibles. But nevertheless they are here. We can't untranslate any of them. And the reality is, as demonstrated in the various categories of my Top Ten, most of them fulfill a particular kind of niche.
So are all the niches filled? The English language will continue to change and textual criticism will improve, so there will be a need for new translations in the future. But I cannot imagine the need for any new translations right now. Perhaps the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) that I mentioned earlier this week is a legitimate exception. This will be the very first official translation of the Bible for English-speaking believers in the Orthodox Church, so that seems like a legitimate niche. But I really cannot imagine any other niche that needs to be filled. Anyone thinking of forming a new committee to create a brand NEW translation should really rethink that idea--in my opinion.
Speaking of niches and the OSB, I'm really surprised that we haven't seen more translations based on the above mentioned TR/MT texts that have been released in recent years. I find that holders to the Textus Receptus/Majority Text/Byzantine textform traditions to be very vocal about their convictions. But I'm surprised that I haven't seen more translations based on this. It is well known that the HCSB was originally based on Farstad & Hodges Majority Text edition back when Farstad was till alive (Lifeway, who bought the copyright moved it to the eclectic text after Farstad's death). The edition of the Majority Text released two decades ago by Farstad and Hodges seemed to be readily embraced by a number of adherents (or at least a very vocal number). But in my own collection of translations, I only count one Bible version based on it, and it was self-published by the translator--certainly not a significant project in the big scheme of things. The text edition in vogue right now for many of these folks seems to be Byzantine Textform produced in 2005 by Maurice Robinson and the late William Pierpont. Who knows if we will see a translation based on this edition sometime in the future, especially since Robinson commands a significant amount of influence at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Or maybe if the upcoming OSB isn't too sectarian, and if it could be released simply as a text edition, it might do it for these folks.
But one thing we definitely don't need is yet another modern language update to the King James Version. There are half a dozen or more of these already: some in print, some only available online. I'll say it again... I don't know why the NKJV isn't enough for these folks.
Regardless, your options are out there. No one has an excuse not to read the Bible because it's supposedly too hard to understand. Certainly, there are still concepts that require serious study, but from a contemporary language perspective, all bases seem to be covered right now.
Here on This Lamp we will continue to review Bible translations. If I've reviewed 10 I suppose I still have a few dozen more to go. I have a life goal to read through all these, too, but unless I receive a gift of longevity, I may not be able to accomplish that goal--especially at the rate they seem to be published.
My thanks goes to you readers who have interacted in the comments providing feedback and occasionally even offering a guest blog entry. Keep it coming; there's still lots to discuss.
Up next: Top Ten Bible Versions: The Complete Boxed Set