Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Versions

Comments on various translations of the Bible and relation translation issues.

  • Best Pew Bible?

    Ken Schenck answers the question of what translation he’d endorse as a pew Bible. I must say that I give him the “Henry Neufeld award” for hedging his answer. For those of you who haven’t met me in real life, I’m known for giving long answers that provide plenty of verbal provisos or footnotes. At one church I attended, the education director called me aside one day to tell me that when church members asked me a question about the Bible they didn’t want a dissertation! My suggestion: Then don’t ask me!

    The best Bible version is one you readThis applies to any form of the “which Bible version is best” question. It’s nice when people specify “best for …” so at least you can limit it to some extent. Across the front of my little book What’s in a Version? I have the sentence: “The best Bible version is the one you read!”

    I’ve had any number of people tell me about the many cases in which that would be wrong. My point is that the Bible is not about possessing it, it’s about reading and absorbing it, and if you don’t read it, forget it. The most theoretically accurate translation is of no value if you can’t or don’t read it.

    Even with that on the front of the book, at practically every show where we’ve displayed it, someone asks, “But really, Henry, what is the best Bible version?” The answer:  It depends!

    So now that I’ve proven I can’t answer a question briefly, what about pew Bibles? I agree with a number of comments that Ken Schenck made in his post, though I would disagree mildly that for detailed study of a text in a class you want a heavily formal equivalence translation. There is a value in such a translation, but in my opinion, there is a great danger in the heavily literal style in that people read it under the impression they’re getting closer to the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew, but they really aren’t.

    I’m tempted to suggest that people go from a mildly dynamic translation straight to the original languages. With a dynamic version, you know that the translators are trying to interpret the text and express the thought. In literal translation, all too frequently people believe that interpretation is not taking place, and that if they just have an English word for every Greek and Hebrew word (or a short phrase), they’re getting close. They aren’t.

    While I have problems with certain renderings in every translation I own, I don’t find dynamic translations generally weaker in that area. I think those of us who read the original languages regularly tend to understand a literal translation according to what we know the original says, and thus miss the many ways in which someone who isn’t aware of the source text might misunderstand the literal rendering.

    My own recommendation regarding a pew Bible would be:

    • Give strong consideration to the way the text sounds when read.
    • Consider the congregation. An older congregation might be more comfortable with the RSV or even the KJV, though I think the latter can interfere with mission. A very young congregation which includes children in the main service might do well with the CEV. I agree with the NLT as a good pew Bible.
    • Consider cost. Some Bibles are printed in economical pew Bible editions.
    • Consider what your congregation uses mostly for study. I recall one congregation that ordered NRSV pew Bibles for a congregation that was used to the NIV. The pastor preached from the NIV. The pew Bibles gathered dust.
    • Consider not having pew Bibles. Projecting texts on screen is an option, but I would consider skipping that as well. (See below.)

    I must confess that I have a serious problem with the whole idea of pew Bibles. I grew up without them. I always had my own Bible. I honestly can’t remember I time when I didn’t. Now I enounter Sunday School classes that have a shelf of Bibles so class members can grab a Bible if they need one. Sunday School in which you might not need a Bible? The idea makes me sick.

    The whole notion strikes me as part of worship as a spectator sport. Convenience is OK, but not if it reduces involvement. What about marking one’s Bible? What about gathering questions and getting into discussion? What about looking at the text later when you get home?

    So if you want my bottom line recommendation, it would be not to have pew Bibles at all. If you project text on screen, do so only for the scripture reading and for responsive readings (one of the few good reasons for pew Bibles, in my opinion).

  • New Edition of the New American Bible

    You can read about it at Unsettled Christianity.

    While it never has been one of my top tier of translations for regular use, I was impressed with the NAB because it combined strong idiomatic language with a fairly strong score for literal translation on the scoring system I use at MyBibleVersion.com.

    In addition, I like the notes, which give a Catholic perspective, and of course the inclusion of the apocrypha.

  • ISV Whole Bible Available

    The ISV whole Bible is available in electronic form. It’s a sort of pre-release, with a module available for eSword, along with Word 2003 and 2010 docs. I now have the whole Bible, even though corrections may be made before printing, so I’m planning to check my key verses and make up my numbers to post on mybibleversion.com.

    I recently found what I consider a wonderful, though simple, wording in the ISV New Testament, “no inconsistency or shifting shadow” in James 1:17.  I’ll be interested in seeing how the Old Testament translation compares with the new. I will post a link here once I’ve written up my notes.

    (HT: Better Bibles)

  • James 1:13 – Tempted by Evil?

    In the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament on James (my review) the suggestion is made that apeirastos kakwn should be translated as an objective genitive, as “tempted to do evil.” They oppose this to a subjective genitive (“tempted by evil”) or one alternative which does not involve a new way of reading the genitive (67, 70-71).

    It’s interesting to note that nearly all translations choose “by evil.” (I say “nearly” because all the translations I have in my library do so.) This is a time when I feel the limitations of my library, but Wallace (125) uses it as an example of a genitive of means, Robertson calls it ablatival (515-517), and Blass-deBrunner-Funk discusses it in a passage covering other cases of the genitive following an adjective, including examples that could have different translations, such as 1 Corinthians 9:21 (anomos theou/ennomos christou). The BDAG entry on apeirastos suggests “tempted to do evil” (and also cites the same passage from Blass-deBrunner-Funk that I have).

    As I look at this passage it seems to me that the more natural translation is “tempted by evil,” while I don’t deny the possibility of the alternative. At first glance, the context seems to suggest something more like “tempted to do evil,” since this then forms the basis for the claim that God does not tempt anyone.

    But I would suggest a logical connection to another phrase, James 1:17 “no inconsistency or shifting shadow” (ISV). Yes, this phrase is separated from the phrase in question, but it appears to me that James entwines multiple topics together as he relates them throughout the book. His point in 13 is that God is reliable and cannot be moved, a point which is actually supported by either translation.

    Thus my second reflection is that the traditional translation of this passage actually fits the logic quite well.

    Any thoughts?

  • Better Bibles: Which Translation to Choose?

    Iver Larsen has a good post on choosing a Bible translation over at Better Bibles blog.  The discussion is also excellent.  Go join the fray!

    You might also check out my site, Bible Translation Selection Tool.

  • Common English Bible: First Impressions

    I did not react very favorably to the announcement of the Common English Bible, because I didn’t really see the benefit of this particular version and its placement.  From a ministry point of view my question is just who will be reached by this Bible version, not just in evangelism and outreach but in discipleship and Bible study in the church.  I have a hard time seeing who that will be.  From a business point of view the question would be what niche will the version fill that is not already filled by a current Bible.

    In order to receive a favorable evaluation based on either of those questions, a Bible version needs to be substantially better than those readily available.  Repairing a few clumsy structures isn’t sufficient.  I would add that I question the total resources placed into new translations in the English language as opposed to translations in other languages, especially those with no scriptures at all.  At the same time many Bible publishers do contribute some of their revenue to such projects.

    Having thought (and said) all that, I still requested a free CEB New Testament, and I received it a couple of days ago.  I’m just going to give you my first impressions.  I want to thank the Common English Bible Committee for making these free New Testaments available and sending one to me.

    I started by reading 2 Corinthians.  I found silent reading easy, and the general outlines of Paul’s arguments quite easy to follow.  I was not confronted with excessively theological language that I would expect to have to explain if I was teaching a class using this Bible.  The sentences were a bit too short for my taste, and were even a bit reminiscent of the NCV which was intended as a children’s Bible originally.  I think the NCV sounds choppy when read aloud.

    In one place I watch closely in Bible translations, 2 Corinthians 5:20-21, The CEB does use one translation I didn’t think quite make it, “God is negotiating with you through us” in verse 20.  I prefer the NLT (and NRSV amongst others):  “God is making his appeal through us.”  Verse 21 is a fairly straightforward literal translation, which I also prefer.  The NLT’s translation “For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin …” is clearer, but also tends to limit the options for interpretation in a controversial passage.

    I also read 1 Corinthians 12-14, where I didn’t find much that was exceptional.  Again, the reading is easy, but still gives me the impression of being a bit choppy.  The questions in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 are properly translated to imply the answer “no.”  I found 1 Corinthians 13 rather bland.  Some of the soaring phraseology seems to be lost in very clear, yet not very impressive phrasing.  One can certainly argue the value of clearly understanding the thought versus the poetic feeling of the passage.

    In the preface, the translators indicate that they use a number of contractions except in passages that should be regarded as more formal.  I’m thinking I’m not going to agree with all their choices on this, but again, this is a subjective matter, more based on my taste than any particular principle.

    I found the preface very helpful.  I often recommend that Bible students read the introduction to their translations.  You can learn a lot that way.  In some cases, you get essentially sales hype, but in most cases you get some good basic theory as well as a good introduction to the choices made by the translators.  I commend the CEB preface.

    Finally, my wife asked me to read from John 1 to her.  Reading out loud was an interesting experience from this Bible.  I would have to rate the sound of John 1 as abysmal.  I’d much prefer to do a scripture reading here from the NLT or the NRSV (given that most people won’t let me use my favored REB!).  The constant repetition of “the light” is jarring.

    I’m going to continue reading this New Testament for some time and allow these early negative impressions to be changed.  Certainly a number of passages read quite well when read silently, and I found the translation easy to understand.  Not every translation has to be great for oral reading.  The main problem I see is that this Bible doesn’t seem to me to excel enough over currently available options to make me want to switch to using it for any of my own activities.

  • HCSB Interview

    Some notes and a link on my book’s (What’s in a Version?) page.

  • How Bible Translation Should be Done

    J. K. Gayle has a couple of posts on translating the Psalms that are really quite helpful.  The first one I read, which is actually the second, is The Difficulty of Psalm 90, in which he discusses some thinking and feeling that may be generated by hearing the Psalm and the first one, which I read second, various poet translators turning around Tehillim 90, which provides several translations with different approaches and characteristics.

    I personally find some things I like and some I don’t like so much in all of these translations, which is not a criticism of any of them.  I really appreciated the chance to read them all side by side.  And as much as some of this material deserves comment, that’s not my purpose in writing this post.

    Probably the most difficult question I’m asked when I am teaching is this:  What is he best Bible version?  I find that terribly difficult, and I annoy people who ask it all the time.  They think it deserves a simple answer.  I should be able to point them to the one best version, and they can just go use that one.

    But instead I ask them what they’re going to use it for, how they approach studying the Bible, and something about their own study and background.  What’s the best Bible version?  The simple answer, which I put on the cover of my book, is:  The best Bible version is  he one you read!

    I usually get by for that one for a few minutes until some bright person wonders just which Bible version they will actually read, and then we’re back to the starting point.

    Now I haven’t always been this way.  When I was in college I could have given you the simple answer, and I would have been satisfied with it.  I would have recommended a mostly literal version.  In those days that probably would have been the NASB.  But then I did some more studying and I became concerned with comprehension.  That made things much harder.  Now in those days there were many less options available, but I was also concerned with how I would translate in my studies.

    It seems that over the years I have become so much less knowledgeable on this subject.  At least I can no longer provide a single, definitive answer to the question, and my response seems to get longer every time I try.  When I hear a preacher say, “What the Greek really says is …” I cringe, not just because he’s probably wrong, but because he’s probably missing so much even if he’s right in some sense.

    The problem is that translation always loses something, and I suspect always adds something to a text.  Now I’m not going to start claiming that all translations are equal.  There are wrong translations, but there are many partially right translations.

    One of my own early problems was checking translations purely on propositional content.  Is a translation of a parable or a poem correct because it contains the same set of propositions?  Is a clear translation of a parable more correct than an obscure one, irrespective of how clear the parable is in the first place?

    The problem is that we often translate as a means of conveying information about the Christian religion.  But just as I’ve found over the years that simply knowing the cognitive content of my faith is far from sufficient, so I have come to learn that the cognitive content of a translation may be much less than adequate.  When I left graduate school I was quite well acquainted with Christian doctrines and very well acquainted with the Bible.  I was referred to as “the human concordance.”  I knew what was there.

    At the same time I left the seminary with that knowledge I also left the church.  I returned in a church pastored by a man who knew no Greek and Hebrew at all, but who did know Jesus.

    I was again reminded of this same issue in a different form when I was discussing with my former student Geoffrey Lentz.  (Geoffrey was my student when he was high school age.  He has since graduated with an MDiv from Duke.)  We were discussing sermons, and I expressed my distress with that particular genre of speech.  (I am occasionally invited to preach, though not by tense clock-watchers!)  I commented that I found it very hard to really cover a subject in 15-20 minutes.  He said to me, “I regard a sermon more as poetry than prose.”

    How’s that for student teacher reversal?

    I think it’s the same point.  The content of faith and spirituality is not simply cognitive.  There can be a variety of ways to express it.  It can be felt as well as known.  It can be expressed in many ways.  Often our best translations of the propositions of faith can suck the life right out of it.

    Or so it seems to me in the growing ignorance of 30 years since I graduated.

  • Free CEB New Testament

    You can sign up.  (Corrected Link for sign up.) They are only guaranteeing delivery for shipping addresses in the United States, but are working on others, and list a number of countries to which they should be able to ship as well.  You can also still download a free copy of Matthew.  I hope to get around to writing a brief review of that soon.

    (HT:  Wesley Report)

  • NLT for Academic Study

    Chris Heard asked via Twitter whether the NLT was suitable for academic study.  T. C. Robinson has given an answer:

    Concluding thoughts: The NLT, New Living Translation, is simply too loose to be considered a serious academic Bible.

    While I have some sympathy with this point, I have to ask just what the definition of “serious” and “academic” are in relation to a particular Bible translation.  Most of my teaching has been of lay people, and thus I’m probably not looking for a serious academic Bible however those labels are defined.  Nonetheless it seems to me that this is too broad an answer to a question that needs a bit of definition.

    For example, what are these serious academic students doing with the particular Bible?  If they are doing exegesis suitable for scholarly publication, or perhaps for training in order to do scholarly publishing, then I would argue that no translation is sufficient to the task.

    On the other hand if they are doing a survey type of study, the NLT might be a quite workable option.  I would especially recommend it for reading whole books.  I should note here that even when teaching lay people I’m in the habit of asking for such shocking things as reading of an entire book, and not the book of Philemon.  Try Ezekiel or Isaiah.

    In reading a whole book I find such translations as the NLT, CEV, TNIV, and a few others quite helpful.  Personally, I like to read a book through in several versions as I follow the 12x reading recommendation I learned from my mother.  I find it difficult to maintain concentration when reading something 12 times from the same version, so I’ll use a variety.  For that purpose, the NLT is certainly helpful.

    I also find the NLT very useful in comparison with my own translations.  Normally if I’m going to preach or teach a text I will do a written translation of my own.  I then like to compare that translation to a range of versions.  Normally I prefer to teach from an English version which is available to my class, provided there are not too many variations in the way I read the text.

    I don’t know whether I agree with T. C. or just how I’d answer Dr. Heard’s question.  I have a hard time conceiving of recommending any single English translation for serious academic study.  But perhaps I’m thinking of something other than what was intended in the question.