Bible version debate

There is an ongoing Bible version debate which has been raging for years (at least since the late '60s when modern translations started appearing) about which translation is 'best'. This covers issues such as how literal the translation should be (and whether the Bible even should be translated into less-literal versions), as well as the versions used. Most of these issues apply to translations of any ancient text.

Importance to Readers

Few readers can read the Bible in its original languages (ancient Hebrew and Aramaic for the Hebrew Bible, plus koine Greek for the Christian Bible). A Bible translation is usually the foundation for all other theology, and therefore it is essential that a translation be something extremely trustworthy in itself.

Followers of Judiasm take the Hebrew bible seriously. The bible itself states that the word of God should be taught diligently and often (Deut 6:6), and that study and memorization of it is delightful and valuable (Psalms 119:11-18).

Christians also take Scripture very seriously. Christians generally assert that the Bible is not merely a book, but the word of God. For such Christians, the Bible is "breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and it is therefore extremely important that it is properly handled. A poor translation can manipulate the original meaning of the text without giving proper consideration to matters of its Historical or Cultural Context. A good translation is especially important to those unable to read the original texts (which are in koine Greek, ancient Hebrew, and Aramaic), since they will typically be unable to check for themselves what the original said.

As an example of how fundamental the translation of the Bible is, the Jehovah's Witnesses, have their own translation of the Bible. In this translation, all the key doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses are made evident.

Formal equivalence (literal), Dynamic equivalence (Free), and Paraphrase

Main article: Dynamic and formal equivalence

In translating any ancient text, a translator must determine how literal the translation should be. Translations may tend to be formal equivalents (e.g., literal), tend to be free translations (dynamic equivalence), or even be a paraphrase. In practice, translations can be placed on a spectrum along these points; the following subsections show how these differences affect translations of the Bible.

Formal Equivalence

A literal translation tries to remain as close to the original text as possible, without adding the translators' ideas and thoughts into the translation. Thus, the argument goes, the more literal the translation is, the less danger there is of corrupting the original message. This is therefore much more of a word-for-word view of translation. The problem with this form of translation is that it assumes a moderate degree of familiarity with the subject matter on the part of the reader. The King James Version (KJV) and English Standard Version (ESV) are two examples of this kind of translation. For example, most printings of the KJV specially mark words (using square brackets or italics) that are implied but not actually in the original source text, since words must sometimes be added to have valid English grammar.

Dynamic Equivalence

A dynamic equivalence (free) translation tries to clearly convey the thoughts and ideas of the source text. A literal translation, it is argued, may obscure the intention of the original author. A free translator attempts to convey the subtleties of context and subtext in the work, so that the reader is presented with both a translation of the language and the context. The New Living Translation is an example of a translation that uses dynamic equivalence. The New International Version attempts to strike a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence; some place it as a "dynamic equivalence" translation, while others place it as leaning more towards "formal equivalence".

Paraphrase

A paraphrase translation goes even further than dynamic equivalence, and attempts to convey some key concepts while not retaining even a dynamic equivalence with the text. Paraphrases may even omit large sections of text, or add other explanatory material not in the original as part of the main text. Paraphrases are typically not intended for in-depth study, but are instead intended to put the basic truths of the Bible in language which could readily be understood by the typical reader without a theological or linguistic background. The Living Bible is an example of this kind of translation.

An Example

In Biblical Hebrew the word "feet" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "genitalia" (usually of the male sort). So in Ruth 3:14 we have the quote "So she lay at his feet until morning." Formal equivalence makes it the reader's responsibility to determine what "feet" means in the context, risking the possibility that the reader completely misses a possible meaning of the passage. Dynamic Equivalence might render the passage "She made love to him until the morning." However there is currently no known English translation that does this. The context is therefore provided by the translation itself. However, it is by no means agreed that the term "feet" is actually a euphemism for genetalia in this passage; some scholars specifically reject this interpretation as being incompatible with the surrounding text..

Contrast of Formal and Dynamic Equivalence

Those who prefer literal or formal equivalence believe that literal translation is closer to the original, therefore it is better. Those who prefer free or dynamic equivalence suggest that such translations enable people to better understand the original, therefore it is better.

The problem with Formal equivalence is that it might demand too much of some readers. The problem with Dynamic Equivalence is that the reader encounters the text with most of the decisions already made and must assume that the work of the translators is not prejudicial.

Paraphrases are typically identified as such, and they are typically not intended for in-depth study. Thus, they tend to be used with beginning readers.

Unknown Word Meanings

Some words (particularly in the Hebrew Bible) occur only once, and nowhere else in any ancient literature. As a result, their meanings can sometimes be obscure and can only be partly determined through context. For example, Genesis 41:43 reports that when Joseph was made second only to the Pharoah in Egypt, "Abrek" was shouted out in front of Joseph as he rode in a chariot. While the word itself is not in doubt, and it is clear that this was a way of giving praise and respect to Joseph, the exact meaning of "Abrek" is uncertain, with various translations translating using terms such as "bow the knee" (ESV and KJV), or "make way" (NIV). Translations typically include footnotes to indicate translation difficulties in such cases.

Selecting Source Text

Key article: Textual Criticism

Another key issue in translating the Bible is selecting the source text. The Bible far predates printing presses, so every book had to be copied by hand for many centuries. Every copy introduced the risk of error. Thus, a key step in performing a translation is to establish what the original text was, typically by comparing extant copies. This process is called textual criticism.

Textual criticism of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) centers on the comparison of the manuscript versions of the Masoretic text to early witnesses such as the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Samaritan Pentateuch, various Syriac texts, and the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, creating a challenge in handling so many different texts when performing these comparisons. The King James Version (or Authorized Version) was based on the Textus Receptus, an eclectic Greek text prepared by Erasmus based primarily on Byzantine text Greek manuscripts. There are far more copies of the Byzantine text-types, so much so that it is termed the "Majority Text". Although the majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition, there remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. These critics include the editors of the Hodges and Farstad text and the Robinson and Pierpoint text. For example, the modern World English Bible translation is based on the Greek Majority (Byzantine) text.

No significant doctrinal issue hinges on these differences in text, indeed, most differences do not yield a difference in the translated result.

The King James Version defenders

There has been a large number of English speaking people who have suggested that the King James Version is the only version of the Bible one should use. Some who follow this belief have formed a King-James-Only Movement. Similarly some Non-English speakers prefer translations based upon textus receptus.

There are others who believe that our knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek has improved over time, and therefore a more accurate translation is possible, whichever texts are chosen to base the translation upon.

Criteria for choosing a translation

There are a number of criteria which are usually used when assessing a translation:

• Does the translator have a good knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek?
• How literal is it? A less literal translation uses more natural language.
• What is it going to be used for? A more literal Bible which is suitable for extremely detailed study of a single chapter may not be very easy to read in large quantities.
• Who is the audience? Children? Working class people? Theologians? The level of language used by the translators will have some differences.
• What is the theological background of the translators? A Bible translated by a single Christian sect is likely to be different from a Bible translated by a cross-denominational group such as, for example, the United Bible Societies.
• Is the translation done by a single person, a different person per book, or a committee of people? A single person is most likely to have bias. Examples of Bibles done by individuals are The Living Bible and Lamsa Bible. The latter is a good illustration of the problem of translations done by individuals; the author of this translation has taken particular translation decisions which most scholars simply do not accept as being correct.
• What were the source documents used to do the translation? A translation like The Living Bible which does not use the original languages is likely to suffer a lot more from the Chinese whispers effect.
• How old is the translation? Perhaps word usage has changed today, or new document fragments have been discovered.