Bible Translations Guide
At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose.
This is an important question about which Catholics need to be informed.
Some have been given very little help about how to pick a Bible translation,
but keeping in mind a few tips will make the decision much easier.
There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work:
formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence.
Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible.
Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.
Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study.
Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text;
these cues are only preserved by literal translations.
The disadvantage of literal translations is that
they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into
the English text. Compare the following renderings of Leviticus 18:6-10
from the New American Standard Bible (NAS—a literal translation) and the
New International Version (NIV—a dynamic translation):
The NAS reads: "None of you shall approach any
blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover
the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The
nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s
daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall
not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter,
their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."
The NIV reads: "No one is to approach any close
relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with
your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual
relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s
daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have
sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter;
that would dishonor you."
Because literal translations can be difficult to
read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence
philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar
and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning
of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English
style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above
example, the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more
readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced
to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."
The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that
there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision
because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal
translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’
doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to
render it.
For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such
as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives
as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else
(such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine.
The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham
was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about—but
not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine
of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives
in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God ‘will give to each person according to
what he has done (erga).’ To those who by persistence in doing (ergou)
good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."
If the erg- derivatives were translated
consistently as "work" then it would be clear that the passage says God
will judge "every person according to his works" and will give eternal
life to those who seek immortality "by persistence in working good"—statements
that support the Catholic view of salvation.
Even when there is no doctrinal agenda involved,
it is difficult to do word studies in dynamic translations because of inconsistency
in how words are rendered. Beyond this, the intent of the sacred author
can be obscured.
Finding a Balance
Both literal and dynamic equivalence philosophies
can be carried to extremes. One translation that carries literalism to
a ludicrous extreme is the Concordant Version, which was translated by
a man who had studied Greek and Hebrew for only a short time. He made a
one-to-one rendering in which each word in the ancient originals was translated
by one (and only one) word in English. This led to numerous absurdities.
For example, compare how the Concordant Version of Genesis 1:20 compares
with the NIV:
"And saying is God, ‘Roaming is the water with
the roaming, living soul, and the flyer is flying over the earth on the
face of the atmosphere of the heavens’" (Concordant Version).
"And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living
creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the
sky’" (NIV).
At the other extreme from absurdly literal translations
are absurdly dynamic ones, such as the Cotton-Patch Version (CPV). This
was translated from Greek in the 1960s by a man named Clarence Jordan,
who decided not only to replace ancient ways of speaking with modern ones
(like most dynamic translations) but to replace items of ancient culture
with items of modern ones.
Compare the NIV rendering of Matthew 9:16-17 with
what is found in the CPV:
"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old
garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear
worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the
skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.
No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved" (NIV).
"Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch
a dress that’s been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material
and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they
do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires
will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good
mileage" (CPV).
Between the extremes of the Concordant Version
and the Cotton-Patch Version is a spectrum of respectable translations
that strike different balances between literal and dynamic equivalence.
Toward the literal end of the spectrum are translations
such as the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV),
the New American Standard (NAS), and the Douay-Rheims Version.
Next come slightly less literal translations, such
as the Revised Standard Version (RSV), and the Confraternity Version.
Then there are mostly dynamic translations such
as the New International Version (NIV) and the New American Bible (NAB).
And finally, toward the very dynamic end of the
spectrum are translations such as the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the New
English Bible (NEB), the Revised English Bible (REB), the Contemporary
English Version (CEV), and the "Good News Bible," whose translation is
called Today’s English Version (TEV).
One translation that is hard to place on the spectrum
is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The basic text of the NRSV
is rendered literally, following the RSV, but it uses "gender inclusive
language," which tries to translate the original text into a modern "gender
neutral" cultural equivalent. When you read the NRSV you will often encounter
"friends," "beloved," and "brothers and sisters," and then see a footnote
stating "Gk brothers." The NRSV also shows a preference for using "God"
and "Christ" when the original text says "he."
There is also a host of minor versions, most of
which are dynamic equivalence translations. These include well-known ones,
such as the Moffat, Philips, and Knox translations, and also unique, specialty
versions such as the Jewish New Testament (JNT, translated by David Stern),
which renders New Testament names and expressions with the Hebrew, Aramaic,
or Yiddish equivalents.
Finally, there are a selection of paraphrases,
which are not translations based on the original languages but are paraphrased
versions of English translations. These tend toward the extreme dynamic
end of the spectrum. The best known is the Living Bible (TLB), also known
as "The Book."
The basic question you need to ask when selecting
a Bible version is the purpose you are pursuing. If you simply want a Bible
for ordinary reading, a moderate or dynamic version would suffice. This
would enable you to read more of the text quickly and comprehend its basic
meaning, though it would not give you the details of its meaning, and you
would have to watch out more for the translators’ doctrinal views coloring
the text.
What is the Best Bible?
If you intend to do serious Bible study, a literal
translation is what you want. This will enable you to catch more of the
detailed implications of the text, but at the price of readability. You
have to worry less about the translators’ views coloring the text, though
even very literal translations are not free from this entirely.
A second question you will need to ask yourself
is whether you want an old or a modern translation. Older versions, such
as the King James and the Douay-Rheims, can sound more dignified, authoritative,
and inspiring. But they are much harder to read and understand because
English has changed in the almost four hundred years since they were done.
One down side to using certain modern translations
is that they do not use the traditional renderings of certain passages
and phrases, and the reader may find this annoying. The "Good News Bible"
or TEV is especially known for non-traditional renderings. For example,
"the abomination of desolation" referred to in the book of Daniel and the
Gospels is called "the awful horror," and the ark of the covenant is known
as "the covenant box."
Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable
version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as King
James-onlyism. Its advocates often make jokes such as, "If the King James
Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me,"
or, "My King James Version corrects your Greek text."
They commonly claim that the King James is based
on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is
no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled
by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern,
liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and
scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as "the Authorized Version"
(AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever
have been "authorized." To this one may point out that it was only authorized
in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D.
A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1979).
As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some
people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which
we might call "Douay-Rheims-onlyism." The Douay-Rheims version, which predates
the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611,
but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking
Catholics until the twentieth century.
What many advocates of both King James-onlyism
and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original
issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes
(for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James,
with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are
significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to
recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible.
The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also
not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the "Douay-Challoner"
version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth
century by Bishop Richard Challoner. He also consulted early Greek and
Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market
is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates
do not realize).
For most the question of whether to use an old
or a modern translation is not so pointed, and once a decision has been
reached on this question it is possible to select a particular Bible version
with relative ease.
We recommend staying away from translations with
unconventional renderings, such as the TEV, and suggest using the Revised
Standard Version- Catholic Edition. This is a Church-approved version of
the RSV that has a few, minor changes in the New Testament. It has been reissued by
Ignatius Press under the title The Ignatius Bible (available from Catholic Answers
in both hardcover
and paperback formats).
In the end, there may not be a need to select only
one translation of the Bible to use. There is no reason why a Catholic
cannot collect several versions of the Bible, aware of the strengths and
weaknesses of each. It is often possible to get a better sense of what
is being said in a passage by comparing several different translations.
So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer
is this: The one you’ll read.
Interested in reading more about the Bible?
Check out these wonderful titles from the Bible and Theology section of our online Catalogue
(links open in a new window):
Bible
The Ignatius Bible, Hardcover format
The Ignatius Bible, Paperback
Vatican Publications
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pocket Edition
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
Bible Interpretation
A Guide to the Bible, Antonio Fuentes
Theology for Beginners, Frank J. Sheed
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott
Inside The Bible, Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Making Senses Out Of Scripture, Mark Shea
Where Is That In The Bible?, Patrick Madrid
Where We Got the Bible, Bishop Henry G. Graham
St. John's Gospel: A Bible Study Guide And Commentary, Stephen K. Ray
NIHIL OBSTAT:
I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR:
In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004 |
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
