THE NEW BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:
ARE THEY NECESSARY?
Editorial
January/February, 1989
Volume 24, Number 1
The catalog of Bethany Seminary issued in June, 1927 contained
a nine-point doctrinal statement which was determined by the Seminary Board
of Directors. The following was listed as a doctrinal tenet of the School:
"The divine inspiration and absolute trustworthiness of the Bible as the
Word of God." Early Brethren believed that the Scriptures were without
error in the original writings.
The original writings of the Bible are not known to exist,
but handwritten copies (manuscripts) were made from the originals, and
today well over 5,000 fragments of the ancient Greek New Testament are
in existence. It is the task of
textual critics to carefully examine
the early copies of Scripture and reconstruct as nearly as possible the
text of the original writings. It is the task of Bible translators to
phrase in present-day language (and in readable form) the message of the
text of Scripture. For about 350 years, the King James Version (KJV) has
been the most widely read and accepted English translation of the Bible,
but the past 40 years has seen an explosion of new translations and paraphrases.
What shall we think about the new Bible versions?
A variety of Bible translations can serve a useful
purpose when they are consulted from time to time for comparison and study.
Some of the newer translations such as the New International Version (N
IV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) are helpful, and do not
in any way change the doctrinal teachings of Scripture. Even the Revised
Standard Version (RSV) which was soundly criticized by many for its bias
at certain points (and rightly so), protects all the major Bible teachings.
Bro. Reuel Pritchett declared that all the distinctive Brethren doctrines
are fully protected, and that in some places, the RSV makes things even
more understandable. See page 80, Reuel B. Pritchett, Churchman and
Antiquarian, Roger Sappington.
Some of the newer versions are paraphrases, which
are freer translations of the text of the Scriptures. The translators take
unusual liberties with words, and so paraphrases are not reliable for reaching
doctrinal conclusions. If they are used at all, they should only be used
to get the overall sweeping message of the Bible. For example, the Good
News Bible (GNB), formerly known as the Today's English Version (TEV),
often uses the phrase "death of Christ" as a substitute for the "blood
of Christ." Also, the translators put profanity in the mouth of the Apostle
Peter when they have him say (in Acts 8:20), "May you and your money go
to hell." In the popular paraphrase known as the Living Bible (LB), the
ordinance of the holy kiss has been reduced to a mere handshake, and the
restriction against outward ornamentation in I Timothy 2:9 has been removed.
The Phillips paraphrase (PH) uses much free interpretation of the original
and can be misleading. Paraphrases have faulty renditions of important
Bible passages.
It is my conviction that the New King James Version (NKJV)
deserves a wide use in our churches. Many people who use the standard King
James Version (KJV) believe they are reading the 1611 original, but they
are in fact using the 1769 (fourth) revision of the KJV. The King James
Version that one buys in the stores today is not the 1611 edition. Contrary
to popular belief, the ordinary King James Bible has been revised several
times. Many of the spellings, much of the punctuation, and even some of
the wording has been changed in these revisions. The original 1611 edition
for example used these spellings: 11 psalme" for psalm, "Dauid" for David,
"oyle" for oil, "cuppe" for cup, "sinnes" for sins, and 11 chuse" for choose,
The average English-speaking person today would find it very difficult to
read the KJV as it was published in 1611. Even the 1769 revision of the
KJV (the one which is now commonly used) has obsolete words like "boiled"
(Exodus 9:31), "amerce" (Deuteronomy 22:19), "neesings" (Job 41:18), "wen"
(Leviticus 22:22), and "brigandines" (Jeremiah 46:4). Other KJV words which
have changed meanings today are "conversation" for conduct, "quick" for
alive, script" for small bag, "trow" for trust, and ghost" for spirit.
But now, in 1982, the KJV has been revised again and has been called the
NKJV. The purpose of the translators was not to make a new translation,
but to continue the labors of the earlier KJV translators. The vocabulary
and grammar of the KJV is updated. The words and phrases of the new revision
are so close to those of the traditional KJV that one can listen
with remarkable ease and recognize familiar passages. The pronouns "thee"
and "thou" and "ye" are replaced with a simple "you"--but all the
pronouns referring to deity are capitalized in the NKJV. The NKJV is a
translation which is accurate, dignified, and honors the Lord Jesus Christ.
I recommend it highly.
There are other useful and helpful translations of the
Bible. The article featured in this issue of the
WITNESS
refers to some of them as he explains some of the matters related to
the important task of translating the Bible.
The New International Version (NIV), completed in 1978,
uses contemporary English words and yet seeks to preserve a measure of
continuity with the earlier established translations. Paragraphs have been
helpfully indented so that the reader can tell where a new thought begins
in the original text. The translators have placed italicized headings at
appropriate places throughout the text to help the reader get the overall
thought.
The New American Standard Bible (NASB), completed in 1971
was produced by fifty-four conservative Protestant scholars. It closely
follows the Hebrew and Greek word order of the original texts and thus
reflects a grammar that is very accurate. The NASB preserves the accuracy
of the older American Standard Version of 1901, and does it with a good,
readable English style.
The above two translations, along with the New King James
Version (NKJV), are the only recent translations which are worthy of wide
use. There is no perfect translation. All translations have certain strengths
and weaknesses. And surely it is unwise to say that the King James Version
has had its day and that it should be scrapped in favor of one of the newer
versions. The KJV imparts the letter and spirit of the original text in
a majestic style, but because its grammar should be updated and many of
its words are obsolete, it is helpful to use more recent translations.
Some say, "But the newer versions don't have a reverent
sound." Our response is that while the statement may be true about some
of the paraphrases, it is not generally true of the more careful translations.
And consider this: How does the reading in the KJV sound when it describes
the male of the human family as "him that pisseth against the wall"? That
clause is found five times in the books of Samuel and Kings. Also, twice
in the KJV, we read about those who "drink their own piss with you" (2
Kings 18:27; Isaiah 36:12). Those expressions don't sound very reverent
either!
Some charge that those who advocate the use of newer translations
have embraced a liberal theology, that they are enemies of the Word of
God, and that they do not love the Scriptures. Many good people have been
caught up in the heresy of teaching that one particular English translation
(usually the KJV) is inspired of God, and that other translations are "the
work of Satan himself." Most of such criticism comes from materials distributed
by radio preachers. They need money badly-and to startle people, they speak
about the Nestle's Text and the Textus Receptus (something the average
lay person knows nothing about)--and hope that by their sensationalism,
they can stir listeners to send in the cash!)
It is good for each congregation to decide that public
reading of the Scriptures from their pulpit shall always be from the same
Bible translation so that people in the audience can easily follow, and
so that occasionally the congregation can read the Bible in unison. For
many congregations, where people are familiar with the KJV, it is beneficial
to continue reading the Scripture lessons from that translation.
It can be valuable for us to consider some of the difficulties
associated with the task of translation, and to reflect upon some of the
various translations which are available to us-but we must remember that
the most important thing is to read God's Word--and not spend too much
time wondering about which version to use.
--H.S.M.
The New Bible Translations:
Are They Necessary?
One of the most significant developments within the Christian Church
today, especially as it has come to affect the person in the pew, has been
the emergence of new translations of the Bible. Some individuals have welcomed
the new versions with open arms; others have found them threatening to
their faith. Lying at the heart of the Christian's faith is the commitment
to the Bible as the Word of God. But today one almost needs to ask, "Which
Bible?" In this article, we will address some of the most frequently asked
questions regarding Bible translations.
Before we discuss the basic questions often asked, we must begin by
making clear some very fundamental facts concerning the Bible and its translations:
a) The Bible was originally written in a language other than English.
Although this may seem trite to some, it is surprising how many people
forget (or perhaps have never known) that Moses and Jesus and Paul did
not speak English. Rather, they spoke the languages of their time and culture.
Primarily, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament
in Greek. Many of the examples we cite will be taken from the Greek as
used in the New Testament.
b) None of the original manuscripts of the biblical writers are known
to exist today. When scholars go to translate the New Testament, for example,
into a given language, they need to rely on a Greek Text assembled from
copies of the original writings. Some of these copies are only portions
of individual Bible books; others are collections of several New Testament
books. Some of the copies (manuscripts) are fairly close to the time of
the original writings; others are rather far removed.
c) Every Bible in any language other than the original, is merely a
translation. This is true regardless of how old or how recent it may be,
or how widely it has been accepted. Translations are merely the work of
fallible men attempting to place the message of an infallible
God into the language of a given people.
d) Every translation of the Bible (whether into English or Spanish or
any other language) involves, by the very nature of the translation, some
interpretation on the part of the translators, and thus may not express
the message of the original in a complete and total sense. Often there
are shades of meaning in the text being translated that just simply cannot
be expressed in the same way in another language.
With these fundamental facts as a background, we are now ready to address
the common questions often asked regarding the emergence of the new translations.
1. WHAT IS A BIBLE TRANSLATION?
To "translate" is simply to attempt to say in one language, that which
was said in another. In reference to the Scriptures, it is the attempt
to take the Word of God, as written in the Hebrew and Greek languages,
and convey that Word clearly and faithfully in the language common to the
people for whom the translation is being made. This very act is necessary
because relatively few Christians know anything about the ancient languages,
and even fewer of us are skilled enough in them to be able to accurately
convey their meaning in our language. Translation is an extremely difficult
and meticulous science, requiring great linguistic skills and a thorough
knowledge of the cultures and mind-sets of the biblical writers. Unless
one is a rare individual who has a working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew
and can freely move between his native tongue and the biblical languages,
lie is fully dependent upon a translation.
As the process of translation occurs, various judgments must be made
concerning how to best represent the original meaning in the current language.
Anyone who speaks more than one language knows firsthand the difficulty
in conveying fully into one language the meaning of a statement made in
another. This is complicated by the fact that sometimes English has no
direct equivalent for a Hebrew or Greek word. Or, perhaps a word in Greek
may carry several shades of meaning and the translator must decide which
shade to represent in a given setting. (An example of this can be seen
in the Greek word peiramos which carries both the idea of temptation
and testing-- two concepts which are quite different in our
way of thinking. When the translator encounters "peiramos" in the Greek,
a decision must be made regarding which of these two meanings might have
been in the mind of the writer. Which meaning is chosen, is a judgment
of interpretation, and may or may not be correct).
Another barrier between us and the original manuscripts of the Bible
is the cultural gap. We live in a world which is far removed and vastly
different from the world of both the Old and New Testaments. This gap is
one which is keenly felt in the process of translation. For example, people
today (unless taught otherwise) will have no idea what the denarius
(a
unit of money), or mina (a unit of weight), or omer (a unit
of dry measure) refers to. Should the translator use these words, or should
he replace them with equivalents in his culture?
For reasons just cited, developing a translation is a difficult endeavor.
The goal is to faithfully represent in another language, the Bible as it
was originally written, giving accurate interpretation of the meaning of
the Bible in the other language. Even though the goal is easy enough to
explain, the task is not easy.
2. WHY ARE THE NEW TRANSLATIONS NECESSARY?
Most of us accept what has been explained thus far, but this still does
not answer the question as to why a new
translation of the Bible
into English is necessary. The Bible has been translated into our English
language many years ago. The King James Version was completed in 1611 and
has undergone at least four major revisions since then. Some ask, "is this
no longer good enough?"
The question is not so much whether the King James Version is a good
translation. Instead, the need for a new translation of the Bible
into English becomes clear when the following two truths are recognized:
First, we must ever remember that language changes. Second, there
have been significant advances made in the area of biblical scholarship.
a) Language changes. No language is static. The English we use today
varies greatly from that which was spoken in 17th Century England. For
example, some words have changed their meaning. To "let" (see 2 Thessalonians
2:7, KJV) meant to "hinder," but now means to "allow" or to "permit." To
"prevent" (see Matthew 17:25, KJV) meant to "precede" or to "go before;"
now it means to "stop" or to ''hinder. " "Conversation" (see Galatians
1:13, KJV) was used to indicate one's manner of life, but now refers to
informal dialog between people. One could go on and on giving examples,
but the point is clear-over the centuries, words change their meaning.
Not only do the meanings of some words change, but there has been change
also in the manner by which the words are joined together to express a
complete thought. In other words, the grammatical syntax of the language
changes also. This is most easily noticed in the long sentences in the
KJV, with frequent use of colons and semicolons. The English of today tends
to use shorter and less complicated structures. An example of this can
be seen in 1 John 1: 1-3 where the KJV is all one sentence (and thus rather
difficult to carefully follow). The New International Version (NIV) by
way of contrast is divided into four sentences (thus simplifying understanding).
Language changes, and thus the writings which we hope will have an effect
on this generation, must be rendered in language which is easily understood
and commonly spoken. Who of us (even those raised with the KJV) can really
understand the following verse (taken from the KJV)? "Ye are not straitened
in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels" (2 Corinthians 6:12).
Is not the NIV more clear when it says, "We are not withholding our affection
from you, but you are withholding yours from us"? We have lots of hurdles
to cross in reaching the world for Christ. Let's not create another by
forcing on the men and women of this generation a Bible which was translated
for a people of another culture and in a different idiom of English.
b) Significant advances have been made in the area of biblical scholarship.
This is a second reason why new translations are valuable. We do not mean
that the individuals who labored to produce the biblical translations of
the past were not well trained. Indeed, they often had the best training
available in their day. But much more has been learned about the nature
of biblical Hebrew and koine Greek (the particular form of Greek
used in the New Testament). Also through archaeological discoveries and
access to remote areas of the world (often the locations of monasteries
in which ancient copies of the Bible were made), the scholar of today has
available for use many more ancient manuscripts of the Bible than did his
predecessors just a century ago.
For the New Testament alone, translators today have over 5300 manuscripts
at their fingertips. Only 25 of these texts were at the disposal of the
translators of the KJV. Arid in relation to the Old Testament, most everyone
has heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, only discovered in 1948 in caves close
to the Dead Sea in Israel. The influence of these manuscripts upon both
Old and New Testament scholarship is still being weighed. The discovery
was very profound in that the scrolls are almost 1000 years older than
previously available manuscripts were (and thus 1000 years closer to the
time of the writing of the original manuscripts of the Old Testament).
Should not the Bibles we read today, reflect the latest and best information
available in Bible translation?
3. WHY HAVE SOME VERSES BEEN DELETED AND OTHERS CHANGED?
Anyone who has read one of the newer translations of the Bible could
not help but notice some significant changes, Most of the time. these changes
are merely that of rewording the text to render it more clearly.
However, sometimes the change is in the deletion of a word or phrase
(for example, "through the Spirit" in 1 Peter 1:22), or the addition
of a word or phrase (for example, 11 according to God" in 1 Peter 5:2).
At other times, there are significant portions deleted or identified (by
footnote or marginal reading) as not being in some of the manuscripts.
Notice, for example, Mark 16:910, John 5:3b 4, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John
5:7.
Why do these additions and deletions occur? As noted earlier, there
are thousands of manuscripts available for the New Testament alone. As
one examines the various manuscripts, two amazing things emerge: First,
no two of the manuscripts are alike in every detail. The differences can
be as small as the spelling of a word, or as large as the deletion of an
entire passage. This is more true of the New Testament than the Old. The
books of the Old Testament were meticulously copied by an order of trained
scribes. Care was taken in copying because for centuries they were recognized
(canonized) as the sacred texts for the Jewish faith. On the other hand,
with the rapid and unorganized spread of the early Church, the writings
which eventually became recognized as authoritative for the New Testament,
were freely distributed and hastily duplicated by anyone who desired a
copy for themselves or their church. This resulted in a vast collection
of manuscripts, many of which contain significant variations. Consequently,
since the translators of the KJV had only 25 manuscripts to consider (and
these were, for the most part, rather recent and basically representing
only one area of manuscript tradition), the KJV does not reflect the textual
variations which are actually present.
The vast variation among the manuscripts is the first amazing fact.
The second fact is even more amazing. If you could examine the variations,
you would find that among thousands of different readings, not one of them
affects a basic fundamental doctrine. No truth of Christianity nor doctrine
of the faith is in doubt because of a variant reading within the many manuscripts.
The deity of Christ, His virgin birth, the blood atonement, salvation by
grace through faith, etc., are never brought into question by the reading
of the manuscripts. Personally, I find this utterly amazing - an indication
of God's watchful care over the transmission of His Word throughout the
centuries. Glory be to God!
But does not the Bible itself warn against adding to or deleting from
the words of Scripture (see Revelation 22:1829)? It most certainly does!
We must realize however that the standard by which we judge the Word of
God is not any particular translation of the Bible. Rather, our
standard must be the original text of Scripture as best assembled
from the manuscripts available. One cannot take the KJV (or any other translation)
and use it as the measuring rod for infallibility. It is just as likely
that the KJV contains words and sentences which are not in the original,
as it is that one of the newer translations omits certain sections.
Our commitment to the Word of God should be such that we want the Bible
to reflect any change which is evident in the older manuscripts. It should
at least be mentioned in a footnote or in the margin.
4. WHY ARE THERE SO MANY TRANSLATIONS?
The number of new translations since the turn of the Century has been
staggering. However, this is not the first era in which numerous translations
have appeared. Prior to the acceptance of the KJV (which took more than
fifty years), there were no fewer than eight other translations offered
to the churches. The current variety of translations is a result of several
factors:
a) Certain translations reflect different basic and accepted texts of
the original languages. For example, since there is such a variation among
the Greek manuscripts, several renditions of the Greek New Testament are
available. The Textus Receptus is the text on which the KJV and
the New King James Version (NKJV) are based. There is also the United
Bible Society Text which attempts to render the readings of the oldest
manuscripts, even if certain readings are only rarely found in manuscripts.
There is also the Majority Text which attempts to render only those
readings supported by the
majority of manuscripts, regardless of
their age. Similar differences occur with the Old Testament as well. Consequently,
a translation will differ depending upon which basic text is used for translation.
b) The variety of current versions also reflects a difference in translation
philosophy. Should a translation be as literal as possible? By "literal"
we mean, should it attempt to stick as closely as possible to the word
order and syntax of the
original language? Of course, an exact word-for-word
translation cannot be done, for the biblical languages are highly inflected.
"Inflected" means that the role of a particular word in a sentence is governed
by the word's prefixes and suffixes, not by its location in the sentence
(as in English). Some of the new translations attempt to be as literal
as possible (for example, the Revised Standard Version [RSV] and the New
American Standard Bible NASB]) This sounds like a good approach, but the
result is often a translation in 11 choppy" English which does not reflect
the usual way sentences are spoken in our language.
Another philosophy of translation is often referred to as the dynamic
equivalence method. In this approach, the concern is not to adhere
as closely as possible to word order, but rather to render the meaning
of the sentence as clearly as possible in the modern language. The
particular use of words is not ignored, but the emphasis is placed more
directly on the best way to express in the translation the concept being
conveyed in the Scripture. This too sounds good, but the extreme of this
becomes nothing more than a paraphrase. A "paraphrase" is a very free rendition
in which the translator inserts much of his own understanding. Examples
of Bible paraphrases include the Living Bible (LB), the Phillips Translation
(PH), and the Today's English Version (TEV).
Perhaps the best approach in translation is one which attempts to combine
both of the above, seeking to relate the meaning clearly, but also attempting
to be as literal as possible without butchering the English language. Presently,
the NIV accomplishes this goal most successfully.
The fact of the matter is, no one translation, regardless of how well
it is done, can capture the full meaning of the Scripture as it was originally
given. (The Amplified Bible is an attempt to do this very thing, but as
a result, it becomes very cumbersome and difficult to read). Something
is always lost in the translation process, especially when there exists
not only a language barrier, but also a cultural obstacle. For this reason,
although you may prefer one translation over another, you should frequently
confer with other translations in your study, and not insist that everyone
use the same translation that you prefer.
5. HOW CAN I KNOW WHICH TRANSLATION IS THE BEST?
This is a difficult question to answer. One must ask, "Best for what?"
The Living Bible cannot be surpassed for gaining an overall understanding of a large section of the Bible. It can be used to read books quickly, in one sitting, in order to get the gist of the entire passage. For public reading and exposition, the New International Version is a choice, because of its clarity, accuracy, and excellent English. When doing critical, exegetical work on a passage, it is hard to beat the literal nature of
the New American Standard Bible. And if it is beauty and poetry
and cadence that you prefer, then the time-honored King James Version
is the best.
When selecting a version of the Bible, next to the translation's accuracy,
the most important aspect to consider is how well it conveys God's message
to you. For some, the choice may be the KJV (especially persons
who have been raised with it). For others, the choice could quite likely
be one of the newer translations. Whatever you do, don't allow some fanatical,
fundamentalist preacher to convince you that the only acceptable
translation (or the most accurate one) is the KJV. That simply is not true.
While it is good to enjoy the use of a wide variety of translations,
most of us will prefer to settle upon the use of one version for our primary
study. Doing this makes memorization much more easy. Those of us who hold
a high commitment to the Bible as the Word of God should be in the forefront
in our open-armed welcome of translations which convey the Gospel in clear,
contemporary English. It is our heart's concern that our world may hear
and believe that Jesus is the Christ, and in believing, they may find the
joy of salvation. New translations of the Bible can be a great aid in reaching
this goal.