|
F e a t u r e A r t i c l e
CHOOSING A BIBLE TRANSLATION
By JAMES AKIN
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 4
 April 1994 
|
|
|
Bible translators use two methods to render
the sacred text into English: literal equivalence (also called formal
or complete equivalence) and dynamic equivalence.
Literal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation
of the original text as possible. Translators using this method try
to stick close to the original texts, even preserving much of the
original word order. [For defenses of formal or complete equivalence
as a translation method, see James Price, Complete Equivalence
in Bible Translation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987)
and Robert Martin, Accuracy of Translation and the New International
Version (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989).]
Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study.
Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text,
cues which are preserved only by literal equivalence.
The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to
read because Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text.
Compare the following renderings of Leviticus 18:6-10 from the Protestant
New American Standard Bible (NAS), a literal translation, and the
Catholic New American Bible (NAB), a dynamic translation:
"None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover
nakedness; I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your
father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother;
you are not to uncover her 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"
(NAS).
"None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse
with her. I am the Lord. You shall not disgrace your father by having
intercourse with your mother. Besides, since she is your own mother,
you shall not have intercourse with her. You shall not have intercourse
with your father's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father.
You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father's daugther
or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in your own household
or born elsewhere. You shall not have intercourse with your son's
daughter or with your daughter's daughter, for that would be a disgrace
to your own family" (NAB).
Since literal translations can be difficult to read, translators have
produced more readable Bibles by employing the dynamic equivalence
method. According to this method, it does not matter whether the grammar
and word order of the original are preserved in English, so long as
the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator
to use modern English style and diction.
In the above example, the translators of the NAB replaced the obscure
Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of" with the more readable
"have sexual intercourse with."
There is a price to pay for readability, though. Dynamic translations
can lack precision because they sometimes omit subtle cues to the
meaning of a passage; these clues may be preserved in literal translations.
Dynamic translations also run a greater risk of having the translators'
doctrinal views read into the text through the greater liberty of
the translating method. For instance, dynamic Protestant translations
such as the New International Version (NIV) tend to translate the
Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when
"work" reinforces Protestant doctrine, but as something
else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when "work"
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
which 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 less consistency
in how words are rendered. Consider these NIV renderings: "Now
you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about
your relationship to God . . . " (Rom. 2:17); "You who brag
about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?" (Rom.
2:23). The Greek word translated "brag" is kauchaomai,
but when the same term appears in Romans 5:11 it is rendered differently:
"Not only is this so, but we also rejoice [kauchomenoi]
in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received
reconciliation."
Because the term is translated in different ways the reader misses
an important.aspect of what Paul is saying. It would be better to
translate the term as "boast" in both cases (as the New
American Bible does). This would make Paul's thought clear to the
reader. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in boasting about God.
Both Jews and Christians do it (Rom. 2:17, 5:11a). Understood in this
sense, it is not bragging about how good you are, but praising
God by proclaiming what he has done for you. While Jews boast of having
a relationship to God through the Mosaic Law (Rom. 2:23), Christians
boast of the relationship God has given them through Christ (Rom.
5:11b). All this is lost if the word kauchaomai is rendered
differently in the two passages, and this illustrates why literal
translations are better for serious Bible study.
Both literal and dynamic equivalence methods can be carried to extremes.
One translation that takes literalism to a ludicrous extreme is the
Concordant Version, translated by A. E. Knoch, who had studied Greek
and Hebrew for only a short time. He made a one-to-one rendering in
which each word in the originals was translated into one (and only
one) word in English. This led to absurdities. Compare the NIV rendering
of Genesis 1:20 with the 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). "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'" (CV).
At the other extreme are absurdly dynamic translations, such as the
Cotton-Patch Version (CPV). This was translated from the Greek by
Clarence Jordan, who decided not only to replace ancient ways of speaking
with modern ones, but to replace items of ancient culture with items
familiar to modern men. Palestine was transformed into the modern
American South, Jerusalem turned into Atlanta, Matthew the tax collector
worked for the Internal Revenue Service, and Jesus became a rough-shod
inhabitant of Valdosta, Georgia.
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 and the Cotton-Patch versions
lies a spectrum of respectable translations which 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)--all Protestant versions--and the
Catholic Douay-Rheims Version. Next come less literal translations,
such as the Protestant Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the Catholic
Confraternity Version, the precursor to the NAB.
Then there are dynamic translations, such as the NIV and the NAB.
Toward the very dynamic end of the spectrum are translations such
as the Jerusalem Bible (JB), 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," the text
of which is called Today's English Version (TEV).
A 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 the NRSV uses "gender inclusive language,"
which puts the original text into a modern "gender neutral"
cultural equivalent. When you read the NRSV you encounter in the text
the terms "friends," "beloved," and "brothers
and sisters" and are referred to a footnote stating "Gk
[Greek] brothers."
Sometimes this "inclusiveness" significantly affects the
meaning of a passage. The NRSV renders 2 Thessalonians 3:16 as "Do
not regard them as enemies, but warn them as believers." A footnote
reveals that the text literally reads, "Do not regard them as
enemies, but warn them as a brother." Everyone knows what warning
people "as a brother" means (that is, correct them with
solicitude, as though you were their brother), but what does it mean
to warn someone "as a believer"? The NRSV also shows a preference
for using "God" and "Christ" when the original
text says "he."
Also on store shelves are minor translations, most of which use the
dynamic equivalence method. These include well-known ones, such as
the Protestant Moffat and Catholic Knox Bibles, and 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. Jesus becomes Yeshua, Paul is Sha'ul,
the Mosaic Law is the Torah, the Feast of Dedication is Chanukka,
and the Holy Spirit is Ruach-Ha Kodesh.
Then there are the paraphrases, which are not translations based on
the original languages, but loose reworkings of English translations.
These are at the extreme dynamic end of the spectrum. The best known
is The Living Bible (TLB), also called "The Book."
When selecting a Bible version, you need to know your goal. If you
want a Bible for ordinary reading, a moderate or dynamic version would
suffice. Such a version enables you to read the text quickly and comprehend
its basic meaning, but it does not give you details of meaning, and
you have to watch out more for the translators' doctrinal views coloring
the text. If you intend to engage in serious Bible study, a literal
translation is what you want. It will enable you to catch the detailed
implications of the text, but at the price of readability. You will
have to worry less about the translators' views coloring the text--but
even very literal translations are not free from this entirely. [For
example, the New King James Version, my personal favorite for doing
Bible study, has a few unfortunate Protestant renderings. It translates
the Greek word logidzetai ("reckon") as "impute"--a
term carrying more of the forensic implications that characterize
the Protestant doctrine of salvation. It tends to translate erga
as "works" when it suits the Protestant cause but as
"deeds" when it would support Catholic doctrine, as in Romans
2:6-7.]
A second question you will need to ask yourself is whether you want
an old or a modern translation. Old versions, such as the King James
and the Douay-Rheims, sound more dignified, authoritative, and inspiring,
but they are much harder to understand because English has changed
in the almost four hundred years since they were made. [One of my
favorite examples of such change is the King James's rendering of
Ex. 23:19b: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."
This enigmatic phrase is rendered into modern English by the New King
James as, "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk."]
One down side to certain modern translations is that they do not use
traditional renderings of certain phrases, and you may find this annoying.
Most people have heard the verse from Isaiah that is given this way
in the Douay-Rheims: "For a child is born to us, and a son is
given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father
of the world to come, the Prince of Peace" (Is. 9:6). Here is
how the New American Bible renders it: "For a child is born to
us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name
him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace"
(Is. 9:5).
The replacement of traditional Christological titles such as "Wonderful,
Counsellor," "God the Mighty," and "Father of
the world to come" can be grating on the ears of someone used
to the traditional phrases. It is also questionable whether the new
renderings are actually better translations. [For example, the rendering
of "Mighty God" as "God-Hero" rests on taking
the Hebrew word for "mighty" as a noun, meaning "mighty
one," and then paraphrasing it to "hero." Some have
found the description of Christ as a hero theologically objectionable
since traditionally heroes are mere mortals who overcome adversity
by courage and cunning.]
The "Good News Bible" or TEV is known especially for non-traditional
renderings. "The abomination of desolation" referred to
in Daniel and the Gospels is called "the awful horror" in
the TEV, and the ark of the covenant is called "the covenant
box." The latter is actually a better modern English rendering
of the original since it avoids the obscure word "ark,"
the meaning of which, "box," most people do not know.
The decision whether to use an old or a modern translation is complicated
by attitudes held by conservative Christians. 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 Paul, it's good enough for me" or "My
King James Version corrects your Greek text."
They claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of
manuscripts we have (a false claim; there are no perfect manuscripts,
and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus),
that it is the only translation that avoids liberal renderings, and
that its translators were 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 authorized only in the Anglican Church, which now uses other translations,
and that the man who authorized it, King James I, was scarcely the
well-spring of moral authority King James-onlyites paint him as (in
fact, he was a notorious homosexual). For a 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, many Protestants take
it seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might
call "Douay-Rheims-onlyism." The Douay-Rheims version, which
predates the King James (the complete KJV was published in 1611, the
complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking
Catholics until the twentieth century.
The arguments for Douay-Rheims-onlyism mirror the arguments for King
James-onlyism. Just as the King James is said to be superior because
of the manuscripts on which it is based, so the Douay-Rheims is said
to be superior because it is based on the Vulgate, Jerome's ancient
Latin translation of the Bible. Appeals are made to how saintly and
scholarly Jerome and the translators of the Douay-Rheims were, and
to the fact that the Douay-Rheims, like the King James, avoids modern,
liberal renderings. Finally, stress is laid on the fact that the Douay-Rheims,
being based on the Vulgate, is based on the official or "authorized"
Bible of the Latin Church.
In support of Douay-Rheims-onlyism, the Council of Trent's decree
authorizing the use of the Vulgate and Pope Pius XII's explanation
of this decree are taken out of context. In his 1943 encyclical, Divino
Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII states that the Vulgate, having been
used for so many centuries by the Catholic Church, has been shown
to be free from doctrinal and moral error. This is not the same, he
stresses, as saying that the Vulgate supersedes or is more important
than the early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts for telling us what the
authors of the Bible wrote. [Many Church Fathers and some editions
of the Vulgate (but not the original) have Genesis 3:15 stating, "she
[the woman] shall crush thy [the serpent's] head." While this
does not contradict any doctrine of faith or morals (for it is through
her Son, Jesus, that Mary crushes the serpent's head), it is not what
the Hebrew original or Jerome's original Vulgate say, which is, "he
[the woman's seed] shall crush your head." This shows how
a Bible translation can be not-contrary-to-faith-and-morals and yet
not what was said in the original. For more information, see A
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [New York: Thomas Nelson
& Sons, 1953], 186.]
The Pope's point is that if something is said in the Vulgate, then
it does not contradict any doctrine of faith or morals. He is not
saying that we should ignore earlier manuscripts to determine
what had been written by the inspired authors of Scripture. He explicitly
commends the making of modern translations from the original manuscripts.
Pius XII informs us that Trent's authorization of the Vulgate applied
only to the Western rite of the Church (not to Eastern-rite Catholics)
and then only to the public reading of Scripture. He states that the
comparison Trent was making was not between the Vulgate and early
Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but between the Vulgate and other Latin
translations then in circulation, and that Trent's authorization of
the Vulgate does not diminish the authority of the early texts.
The Council's decree, he tells us, had juridical rather than critical
force, meaning that it made the Vulgate the official version for Church
use, but did not intend to put a stop to critical work done with early
manuscripts to determine the original reading of Scripture. (See the
sidebar for the Pope's words.)
What advocates of King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism may
not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s.
Over the last three centuries numerous changes (for example, of spelling
and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that
most editions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly
different from the original. This has led one publisher to reissue
the 1611 King James Version Bible.
Most of the Douay-Rheims copies now on the market are also not from
the 1609 version. What is often found in stores is the "Douay-Challoner"
version, so called because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done
in the eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner. He updated
the Douay-Rheims by removing archaic spellings (for example, "bloud"
became "blood"), and he consulted Greek and Hebrew manuscripts,
meaning that the Douay-Rheims Bible found in most book stores is not
a straight translation of the Vulgate--something 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 Bible version with relative ease. I prefer
to stay away from translations with unconventional renderings, such
as the TEV. Since I usually engage in Bible study rather than in simple
Bible reading, I prefer using literal translations.
My preference is for the NKJV, but, since this is not available in
an edition with the deuterocanonicals, I use the RSV Catholic Edition.
This is a Church-approved version of the RSV which has a few, minor
changes in the New Testament. Until recently the RSV-CE has been hard
to find in America and had to be ordered from the Catholic Truth Society
in London. Now it is being reissued by Ignatius Press as The Ignatius
Bible. (When this edition is in print, we will advertise it in
This Rock.)
In the end, there is no good reason to select only one translation
of the Bible. A Catholic should collect several versions, remaining
aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. Often it is possible
to get a better sense of what is being said in a passage by comparing
several different translations.
The bottom line: Which is the best version for you? A possibly apocryphal
anecdote about Billy Graham has the answer. When asked which Bible
version is the best, he replied, "The one you will read."
James Akin is a contributing editor to This Rock.
|
