1. INTRODUCTION
There are a multitude of different versions of the Bible available in the English language: every couple of years yet another is published. Which is "the best"? It is natural to assume that each group of translators considers theirs better than those which went before, but the ordinary Christian needs guidance on the differences between the translations, and their relative merits.
This note reviews firstly the way translations differ because of the differences between the underlying original language texts, and the (more important) differences which arise from the principles used to translate those texts. Recommendations are made about which versions to use.
2. WHICH ORIGINAL TEXT?
The first reason for differences between translations arises from the differences in the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts upon which they are based. Unfortunately we do not have the originals written by the authors own hand. We only have handmade copies which were made later, which were themselves handmade copies of those originals. As a result the available texts differ slightly from one another. Fortunately these differences are mostly minor, so that no major doctrines are compromised by these differences.
Which Original Text? Old Testament
The text of the Hebrew Bible is much the same for all translations, because the Jewish scribes were scrupulous in their approach to copying the Sacred texts. The textual variations between the available texts are consequently relatively minor. The major difficulty in translating the Hebrew text is that it was originally written without any indication of the vowels which were to be used. This probably posed little problem for the original readers who were fluent in Hebrew, and who knew from custom and context what the words were that were being used. Much later, from about the 6th century AD, symbols were added to the text (called vowel points) by a group known as the Masoretes, to show what these editors thought the vowels ought to be. However as this was done so very much later, and at a time when people were no longer fluent in Hebrew, these vowels cannot be regarded as having any authority. So bible translators can change these vowels if they believe this is justified. This accounts for some of the variations between translations of Old Testament verses.
Before Christ came, some translations of the Hebrew Bible were made into other languages, to give, for example, the Syriac, Samaritan, and the so- called Septuagint (Greek) translations. Where the Hebrew text is obscure, these ancient translations sometimes help modern translators. The most important of these historically was the Septuagint version, which was widely used by the "Hellenistic" Jews (see Acts 6:1) who had lost the knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, usually because of living in foreign lands. Where the translation was close enough for the purpose in hand, New Testament writers sometimes quoted from the Septuagint when quoting from the Old Testament. They did not always do so, but sometimes translated afresh from the Hebrew. The quality of translation of the Septuagint Version is very uneven, and indeed retranslations into Greek had been made before the christian era. Nevertheless the Septuagint remained dominant, and its impact on the early Gentile church was significant.
Which Original Text? New Testament
The text of the New Testament presents quite different difficulties. There are a very large number of early copies of part or all of the New Testament. Over 5000 Greek, 8000 Latin and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament. Some of these are very old and some are more recent. The early church did not have the same system of "approved copyists" who were used for copying the Old Testament, and who regarded it as a sacred duty not to introduce any errors or variations in the text. Instead, anyone who wanted a copy would make his own, or employ a scribe to make it for him. In some countries today it is still necessary to make a copy of the bible by hand in this way. This is an onerous task, and it is not surprising that errors were introduced. Most of the variations are purely linguistic (variations in spelling or word order), do not change the sense of the passage and do not affect translation into English. Other differences, regarding omission or inclusion of a word or clause, and two paragraphs in the gospels (John 8:1-12 and the end of Mark's gospel), should not overshadow the overwhelming degree of agreement which exists among the ancient records. The most important differences in the English New Testament of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way translators view the task of translation, which will be considered later.
On the face of it, the older a text is, the nearer it should be to the original wording. But in fact the situation is less clear cut than that. Heresies were already becoming a serious problem during the lifetime of the Apostolic writers, and the situation deteriorated further after the death of the Apostle John. There was a temptation to adjust the text to suit the heretical prejudices of the copyist or his employer. Handwritten copies of the New Testament would normally be used until they wore out and fell apart, but if one was recognised to be unreliable, it might well be discarded while still in good physical condition. Bad copies are therefore more likely to survive complete, and to be found centuries later. The oldest complete texts are the "Sinaitic" and "Vatican", and in spite of their age, some scholars doubt their faithfulness, since they often disagree with each other and show other signs of unreliability. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and related papyri is known as the "Alexandrian" text. Alexandria is in Egypt, in North Africa, an area notorious for the Arian heresy which undermined the full Deity of Christ. Compared with the "Received Text" used for the Authorised Version, these texts place less emphasis on Christ's full deity, omitting, for example, "begotten" in John 3:16. The destruction of North African christianity by Islam ensured that African texts were unknown to bible translators until these texts were unearthed by archaeologists from the nineteenth century onwards.
The great majority of manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none earlier than the fifth century, most of their readings are verified by ancient papyri, ancient versions, and quotations in the writings of early church fathers. The Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, and the so-called Textus Receptus or "Received Text" used as the basis of the Authorised Version of the Bible are derived from texts from this source.
These texts are sometimes called "Byzantine", since most have their origin in Europe and Asia Minor, which was dominated by the more orthodox theology championed by Byzantium, now Constantinople. As might be expected, the Byzantine texts place greater emphasis on the deity of Christ than the Alexandrian. The support for the Byzantine readings from the earlier fragments (and the greater disagreements between different Alexandrian readings) suggest that the Byzantine texts better reflect the original texts. But it remains possible that Byzantine copyists adjusted the text to emphasise the divinity of Christ to combat the Arian heresy.
Because of the degree of agreement between these texts, and the differences from the Alexandrian, since the latter part of the nineteenth century some scholars have held that this traditional text had been officially edited by the fourth century church. There is no direct evidence for this, and recent studies have caused significant changes in this view, and a growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text as more reliable than previously thought.
A newer group of New Testament scholars are persuaded that the best guide to the original Greek text is the close consensus of the majority of Greek manuscripts. The Greek text obtained by this rule is called the Majority Text, which is similar to the Received Text.
The above considerations suggest that the Received or Majority Text is probably more reliable than the Alexandrian, though it would be unwise to be totally dogmatic on this point. It seems unlikely that any text is correct in every detail.
Some christians believe that the only acceptable text is that which gave the "Authorised Version", and believe that it was providentially preserved. If this is a revelation from God then it is to be respected, but usually it is a human dogma. The discovery of the "Alexandrian" texts in the nineteenth century caused a major upheaval in attitudes to the New Testament, and provided ammunition to liberal theologians who sought to prove that the New Testament was a document of late creation, full of errors and embellishments. Regrettably much of the study of biblical texts which sought to determine the most accurate text was also left to liberal scholars in the nineteenth century. Some evangelical christians reacted to this threat with dogmatic attitudes in favour of the Authorised Version.
This century balance in biblical studies has been restored, and truly christian scholars have taken up the task of determining the most accurate original language texts. As a result of this further work, it has become clear that more weight should be given to the Received Text readings than was given to them by the earlier critics. The resulting change in attitude is reflected in the restoration of disputed passages to the main text in the second edition of the Revised Standard Version (produced by mostly liberal scholars and reliant mostly on Alexandrian texts).
None of this should be threatening to faith: we believe that the bible as originally given is what was inspired. Moreover, the variant readings of the original text do not materially affect our faith or practice: most differences in English translations are due to the way the text has been translated. From the point of view of bible study, in the few cases where variations in the Greek may be significant, they should be examined before the Lord to determine the best to use. As always, if in doubt, ask the Author.
3. WHICH TRANSLATION? - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION
A more important consideration for the English reader than the acceptability of the underlying text, are the principles employed in making the translation.
Literal Translation or "Complete Equivalence"
Traditional translators tried, so far as is possible, to translate on a word for word basis from one language to another. This is "literal" translation. Accuracy consists of getting as close to a word for word translation as possible, and is typical of the translations traditionally required of schoolchildren. For closely related languages it works reasonably well, but significant problems arise from the use of idiom, from differences in the uses of tenses, and the emphasis which arises from the use of word order. These problems can usually be overcome to a greater or lesser extent by using the corresponding idiom in the second language, by using the tenses of the second language in a slightly unfamiliar way, and by using the emphatic word-order or other facility in the second language. In doubtful cases, the translator can indicate the literal translation as a footnote. This approach is sometimes termed "complete equivalence": it seeks to preserve all the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form. All bible translations used this approach until quite recently, and the earliest attempts to do more than this unashamedly called themselves paraphrases (e.g. The Living Bible).
Its main drawback is that it may not easily convey the underlying ideas which the writer is expressing. This is a cultural problem. Each language contains an embedded set of cultural assumptions, and in writing a text, a writer draws upon a series of associations which transcend the words which he employs. Even within a single language it is easy to paraphrase a sentence which literally should mean exactly the same thing, but which has a different real meaning to a native speaker of the language.
Dynamic Equivalent Translation
The recognition of this problem in general linguistics led to a totally different approach to language translation called "dynamic equivalent" translation. The idea is to write a translated text which will make the same "impact" on the reader in the second language, given his culture, as the original text made on a reader in the original language in his culture.
This seems an excellent idea, but even for normal books it is much more difficult than it seems. It relies on it being possible to find a dynamic equivalent (i.e. a paraphrase) which includes all that was meant in the first language and excludes all that was not intended. The translator must also be capable of expressing that dynamic equivalent without lengthy commentary. He must be fully conversant with the totality of both languages and both cultures, a tall order even for two modern languages. It is almost impossible if one culture is 3000 years old. It is possible to accept this as an inherent limitation in making translations, and that this is the best which can be done, at least for ordinary books. Errors are not likely to be a matter of life and death: even "dynamic equivalent" translations can make stark distinctions clear!
For a literally translated book, obtaining extra information about the original language and culture will enhance the depth of understanding of the translated book, almost without limit.
By contrast, dynamic equivalent translation makes it impossible is to include all the possible shades of meaning. The dynamically translated book is useless for study. Information in books about the original culture no longer correspond to the ideas in the text, as the concepts have been adjusted to suit the second culture. Indeed a dynamically translated book probably tells the reader more about his own cultural assumptions than it does about those of the writer. Thus much of the book's value, that it tells you about ways of thinking, feeling and being that are absent from one's own culture, may have been deliberately eliminated by the principle of translation.
Even where there is an apparently common language, there can be great variations in the cultural assumptions and attitudes between those who use it. English poses particular problems in this respect as it is used so widely, not only by residents of the British Isles (from, for example, the Upper Classes in South East England to Indian subcontinent immigrants in Glasgow), but throughout the world. Since most bible translations come from Bible Belt America the culturally dependent assumptions made in dynamic equivalence translations may be completely inappropriate for many British readers.
Dynamic equivalent translations have a short shelf life, as modern cultures and languages change rapidly, so translations need renewing frequently. (This helps to explain why new bible translations using this principle of translation are now emerging so often.)
All of the above applies to books written by humans for humans. We can expect as a translator of a human book to be able, at least in principle, to understand all the ideas, feeling and emotions that another human being feels. This is not true of the Bible:
The principle of "Dynamic Equivalence" as a means of bible translation must therefore be rejected, at least for a bible used for serious study. (Provided it is accepted that dynamic equivalent translations are in their nature commentaries, they can be used for quick "review" reading of the Bible.) A dynamic equivalent text comes close to providing a commentary on the text, but this fact is disguised from the reader. Instead we must translate literally, and rely on commentaries or other works to assist readers in understanding the cultural and linguistic basis upon which the bible's statements depend. Such commentaries are obviously what they are, and are not given the spurious status of Holy Scripture, and different commentaries can be compared. Additional understanding can always be added as more facts come to light.
Dynamic equivalent translators take too much upon themselves, like those who offered unholy fire before the Lord (Leviticus 10:1), since they presume to do the work of interpreting the Word of God for those who read.
4. REVIEW OF TRANSLATIONS
The following review is far from complete, but it aims to cover most of those which are likely to be seen today. As far as the underlying text is concerned, translations fall into two groups: those based on the so-called "Received Text", and those based on modern Alexandrian texts.
Received Text translations The "Received Text" is not a single text, but the name applied to a number of different editions produced in the sixteenth century by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza using manuscripts from the ninth century onwards. The Elzevirs editions were in the seventeenth century. There are minor variations between these editions. (The modern Majority Text is very similar to the Received Text, so will not be considered separately.)
Despite these failings, it remains an important translation for the christian, because most English and many original language bible study tools such as concordances are linked to it. But it ought not to be the only translation used. The most useful edition of the AV is probably the "Newberry Bible", which has extensive marginal notes, and a comprehensive system of markers in the text to indicate the tenses and number of the words translated. It also shows where several English words represent one word in the Original.
Translations based on texts derived from modern scholarship
There are a very large number of such translations. The underlying Greek text varies widely, but most are Alexandrian in flavour. The term "eclectic text" used in the following descriptions means that the underlying original text is formed by picking readings from different manuscripts, but the translators have not adopted a formal or systematic approach when deciding which of the various readings should be adopted.
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are my current recommendations for English translations, which arise from the above discussion of the merits of different translations.
For General Use and as Main Study Bible: one of the following:
New King James Version (NKJV)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
(In either case, make sure it is an edition with translators' footnotes.)
For Study purposes with the above Main Study Bible:
Authorised Version (for use with Bible Helps - best edition Newberry)
Young's Literal Translation (to help with peculiarities of the original)
For those with limited reading ability (including children):
Good News Bible or International Children's Bible
For Quick Reading: Other translations (regard as Commentaries):
The following are easy to read as a quick overview:
Good News Bible
The Living Bible