Bible Translations: an examination of the controversy

Grace Life Articles

written by Grace Life Minnesota

Which Bible translation is the best?

Examining the controversy!

The subject of Bible translations is often divisive, confusing and controversial. Amidst such intellectual challenges, we would be wise to extend grace and brotherly love toward those arriving at a different conclusions. Inevitably, the underlying translation philosophy and the preferred codex of manuscripts employed by a translation team are fundamental determinants delineating the major differences between one translation and another. As a layman just scratching the surface in this potential quagmire, the following is a synopsis of some helpful information:

Two primary methods of Translation Philosophy

1. Functional Equivalence: "word-for-word"

The translation team's primary goal seeks to render the literal meaning of the original text.
Examples include the KJV, NASB, ESV, LITV, YLT, ALT, MKJV, NKJV, etc.
Useful for in-depth Bible Study.
Readability varies greatly between various versions.

2. Dynamic Equivalence: "thought-for-thought"

The translation teams primary concern is ease of readablity.
Examples include the NIV, TNIV, NET, CEV, TLB, all paraphrases, etc.
Useful for devotional and public reading.
Not recommended for in-depth study.

In a certain sense, the finished product of every translation involves a trade-off between literal precision and readability. And, aside from some vigorously debated controversies regarding the manuscript sources used in the various translations, the choice of which translation ultimately boils down to personal conviction and preference. Personally, I like the English Standard Version (ESV) as my primary source for reading, in-depth study, and memorization. The ESV is among the most recent translations, placing a high emphasis on literal precision while maintaining exceptional readability. Frequently, I find considerable benefit from accessing a number of other translations as I seek the Spirit's leading for insight into a Biblical text. Bible software programs can be excellent tools for comparing between several different translations. I simply love a product called e-Sword - free Bible software that is feature-packed, fully customizeable, and very user-friendly.

The Greek Manuscript Controversy:
The controversy over which Greek manuscripts are the most reliable can be lumped into two broad classifications ... the oldest manuscripts vs. the largest number of manuscripts.

1. The Critical Texts (CT): the oldest!

These recent archaeological discoveries are the oldest of the available Greek texts,.
Clearly the minority of all available texts (amounting to about 10% of all available manuscripts ).
Origin: the Alexandrian, the Caesarean, and the Western families of Greek manuscripts.

2. The Majority Text (MT): the most!

Includes 90% of all manuscripts, but are of much later origin.
Origin: the Byzantine family of manuscripts from which we also get the Textus Receptus (TR).
Note: the TR deviates from the MT on more than 1800 occasions.

The Crux of the Matter
Proponents of the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus claim that the early manuscripts from the Alexandrian family are corrupt and unreliable. Much discussion on this issue is available on the web (pro & con). Modern day proponents who emphasize inclusion of the older texts hold the conviction that the best modern translations are the result of sound scholarship which takes into consideration all of the available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, compares the textual variants among the manuscripts, and employs appropriate discernment in an effort to render the proper English text.

In light of such controversy, I prefer to have access to translations from both of these schools of thought. Currently, I reference my parallel Bible (e-Sword free software) with two essentially literal translations from each camp ... i.e. KJV and LITV (i.e. well respected TR versions) and the ESV and NASB (i.e. well respected versions which rely on the CT). Aside from the somewhat archaic language used in the KJV, I find considerable harmony between each of these translations ... and for that matter, most of the other available translations.

Popular Bible Translations

The King James Version (KJV):

The King James Version first published in 1611, and has had four revisions (in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769).
The KJV was long held as the Authorized English version (for 300+ years). The KJV is closely related to it's predecessor, The Tyndale Bible ... and other contemporaries of the time (The Geneva Bible, Douay- Rheims, etc).
KJV is a literal word-for-word translation, which uses the Textus Receptus (TR) ...i.e. a relatively small portion of the Byzantine texts that also form a larger codex called the Majority Text (MT).
The KJV is very archaic, and not easily understood ... much of the phrasing is obsolete and misleading at times ... and as with all translations, it does have its share of errors.
It is considered a very good translation, in particular for in-depth study (especially when used in conjuction with a more modern translation for issues of comparison and readability).
Subsequent Modern Day Revisions include the MKJV (J.P. Greene) and the more recent NKJV.

The American Standard Version (ASV):

This 1901 authorized revision of the KJV was introduced due to new archaeological discoveries and language barriers.
The NT was translated based upon recent findings of O.T. manuscripts that were older, and deemed more reliable than the Textus Receptus used for the KJV.

The Modern Translations
Several Revisions of the 1901 ASV have occurred in recent years. Like the ASV, most of these have deviated from a strict adherence to the Textus Receptus (TR), favoring recent discoveries of older and supposedly more reliable texts (CT). Among academic scholars, the Nestle-Aland Greek text is the new standard.

Popular modern translations:

The Revised Standard Version (RSV - 1953 & 1971):

Updated language from the ASV, which was also archaic.
Currently out of print.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB - 1971 ... recently updated in 1995)

Considered to be one of the best literal word-for-word translations available today.
The most recent updates translated the New Testamenty using the Nestle's 26th edition of the Greek NT. Fairly scholarly ... more difficult to read than other modern day translations.
Considered by many to be an excellant study Bible.

The New International Vesion (NIV - 1978):

A thought-for-thought translation (emphasis on dynamic equivalence)
Very popular ... very readable
Translated from an eclectic blend of Greek texts.
Not as reliable for in-depth study

The New King James Version (NKJV - 1982):

A modern revision of the KJV ... still based upon the TR (Textus Receptus)
Fairly popular
Fairly literal ... word-for-word translation

The English Standard Version (ESV- 2001)

A recent revision of the RSV
A essentially literal word-for-word translation.
More readible than the KJV and NASB, yet very reliable for in-depth study.
The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

Other Translations:

MKJV & LITV:

J.P. Greene word-for-word translations
N.T. is based upon the Texts Receptus

NET, CEV, GNB, TLB, TNIV, etc:

Thought-for-thought (lots of paraphrase)
Very readible, but not very reliable for in-depth study.

Helpful Info:

Masoretic Text - considered the best source of reliable O.T. manuscripts ... most good translations use these texts.

Texts Receptus - the name given to the Greek N.T. manuscripts relied upon by Erasimus ... a fraction of the Byzantine texts that are the "majority text" ... over 90% of the N.T. manuscripts originate from the Byzantine family (copied by scribes at Antioch).

Alexandrian Texts - older texts ... more recent archaelogical discovery ... considered reliable by most scholars (transcribed by trained scribes in Alexandria). Even so, there are some hotly debated controversies ... especially among adherants of the KJV-only crowd (who think the Texts Receptus is the only reliable text ... all others are deemed heretical in their eyes).

Westcott and Hort - two highly regarded, yet fairly liberal scholars whose textual criticism has influenced modern translation philosophy. While they were not born-again Christians, their scholarship credentials are highly esteemed among the majority of conservative scholars. Among the Critical Text (CT) family, both the USB and Nestle-Aland Greek texts (i.e. the current standard texts) have retained much of the philosophy for textual criticism iintroduced by Westcott and Hort (even though the Westcott and Hort text is seldom used).

Links:

Examining the Manuscripts
ESV Translation Philosophy
NASB Translation Philosophy
Equip.org Article

Important Information