Bible Translations

[CThomas]

In working through recordings of Mr. Gregg's presentations, I frequently notice asides criticizing the NIV translation. I was curious what the big-picture problem is with the NIV. My church uses the NIV, and while I know little about Bible translations, I had the sense that NIV was generally a good "conservative" literal-leaning translation. I had the sense that the King James was riddled with textual problems (and I personally don't enjoy the archaic language). I once heard someone sing the praises of the American Standard Version of 1901, and I enjoy using that translation. My two questions, I guess, are (1) what are the major issues with the NIV, and (2) what translation or translations should be preferred to it?

Apologies if this issue has been addressed ad nauseam. I have a bit of trouble with the search engine at this forum sometimes, and wasn't able to quickly find existing discussions of this issue. Thanks, and best regards.

CThomas

[Jason]

I know Steve is really down on the NIV but I actually enjoy reading it. He doesn't like the way the NIV translaters put their own interpretation into the text, such as how they translate "sarx" as "self" instead of the literal "flesh." Such a translation has a bearing on the actual meaning of the text. But I've yet to see a translation that didn't have some of these characteristics. I'm reading through the NLT right now which Steve would have all kinds of problems with, but I've found the text to bring out a little nuance from very familiar passages. Those things tickle my brain a little so I like them.

[TK]

I agree, Jason, so I try not to limit myself to any one translation. my palm pilot has 4 different ones (NIV, NLT, RSV and MSG) which makes it really easy to flip back and forth between different versions. I need to break down and purchase the NKJV as well but havent got around to it.

TK

[Paidion]

“Group A” have “book of life”: AV, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, R Webster, and YLT (which uses the word “scroll”). The Catholic Douay translation also has “book of life”. But “tree of life” is found in ASV, Darby, ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, Philips, and Rotherham (hereafter called “Group B”.

I can read nearly any of the "Group B" translations with a fair degree of confidence, that is, translations such as the ASV, Darby, ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, Philips, and Rotherham. Of course, like the translators of any translation, each translator or group of translators of each of these versions have their own interpretations of some of the words in the New Testament. But at least they all based their translation of the ancient and more reliable Greek manuscripts.

I have far less confidence in ANY of the "Group A" translations, such as the AV (King James), JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, R Webster, and YLT. The reason is that these translations of the New Testament are based on later, altered Greek manuscripts.

I indicate some of the differences and faults in the "Group A" translations in the following post:

Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscipts?

[darinhouston]

I've been enjoying the Net Bible (New English Translation) lately, particularly for its extensive translation notes. I'm not sure which "group" it belongs to.

[Paidion]

Darin, is that another name for "The New English Bible"? If so, it's Group B. That's the good one!

If it's not the same, try this simple test:

Look up Revelation 22:19, and find the following sentence:

Group A
God will take away his share in the book of life.

Group B
God will take away his share in the tree of life.

[darinhouston]

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?search=r ... 2&verse=19

And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life 1 and in the holy city that are described in this book.

here are the notes:

tc The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV rests, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek mss. The most notorious of these is this reading. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while “the tree” of life, found in the best and virtually all Greek mss, is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin mss; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators. (This textual problem is not discussed in NA27.)

[steve]

Darrin posted the above post as I was writing this one. Interestingly, we both independently raised the issue of Erasmus and the TR text of Revelation...
--------------------------------

A passage in Revelation does not provide a fair test of the general quality of a New Testament textual tradition, for the simple reason that the "Group A" translations all followed the "Textus Receptus" (Hereafter, the "TR")—in which, in the absence of a complete Greek copy of Revelation, Erasmus translated these verses from the Latin Vulgate to the Greek. This would obviously make the TR's version of this portion of Revelation less authoritative, though it would have no bearing on the quality, authority or value of the TR with respect to the rest of the New Testament.

Also, every textual tradition of the Book of Revelation bears witness to an unusually large number of changes and corruptions that must have occurred before any of our surviving manuscripts came into being. Thus, no test comparison taken from the Book of Revelation would be very relevant to the question of which manuscripts actually preserve the oldest textual tradition of the New Testament, in general.

Also, though the Alexandrian Text (which was used by the "Group B" translations) is indeed supported by older manuscripts (two or three, in number) than are available to support the TR, it is claiming too much to say that they necessarily represent the oldest textual tradition. That is, being a few hundred years removed from the original manuscripts, the few Alexandrian samples that we have may as easily represent a corruption of earlier textual tradition, as is commonly claimed against the TR. It is not hard to imagine scenarios in which the original tradition came to be preserved in the form of the TR, while a more-corrupted tradition came to be preserved in the few copies that represent the Alexandrian Text.

Modern scholars confidently pronounce their verdict in favor of the Alexandrian Text—just as confidently as they like to assert their confidence in the "Documentary Hypothesis," the multiple-authorship of Isaiah, and other unproven and unprovable beliefs. The true state of affairs, so far as my research has ascertained (having read textual scholars on both sides of the debate), is that no one knows for sure which manuscript family really preserves the complete textual tradition of the most primitive (no longer available) manuscripts, from which all surviving manuscripts probably differ by small degrees. Even the differences between the TR and the Alexandrian Text are inconsequential, in my judgment. I have always assessed the relative merits of alternative readings on a case-by-case basis. My tentative conclusions are that there are verses in which the Alexandrian better preserves the likely original, and others where the TR does so. However, this cannot be known with certainty, and an insistence that we must attain such certainty, could well be recognized as one of the more unambiguous symptoms of OCD.

I have always expressed respect for translations from both "groups." I like the New King James (from Group A), because it corrects the classic translation errors of the older KJV, and modernizes the language to accommodate those who say they "can't understand all those 'thees' and 'thous'," but it retains most of the superior features of the KJV. I respect the NASB (from Group B), though I think its choppy English is sometimes harder to follow than the smooth-flowing KJV itself! My limited use, so far, of the ESV (also from Group B) has led me to have some respect for it as well, though I have not read it all.

I regularly consult the NIV, NLT, and other strictly "dynamic translations" (sorry, but I can no longer bring myself to read the Message at all, except in search of humorous illustrations of how bad a paraphrase can get...these present themselves so readily that I do not have to spend much time between those covers). The consultation of the dynamic versions is like listening to someone's well-researched exposition, or reading a good commentary. They often reveal a lot of the ingenuity that scholars can bring to the interpretation of a passage—which can be a very enlightening thing.

My problem with the NIV is that so many Christians call it, or think of it as, a "translation"—when its status as such should be regarded as highly debatable. It reads very nicely (I have read through it more than once), but I would not wish to use it for anything more than seeking the "drift" of a passage. If I wanted to know anything about the actual words used by the biblical authors, there would be little help from the NIV—which was the first "translation" (I am pretty sure it was the first) to abandon the practice of italicizing words that do not correspond to any words in the original, simply because they would have had to italicize far too many words. All those italics would reveal the reader how much "interpreting" and how little real "translating" the scholars had done in producing it.

The NIV is a good reading Bible for those who are content to have their translators do all of their doctrinal thinking for them, and who do not want anything to come up in their Bible reading that would cause them to rethink the most conventional evangelical traditions. It will serve well in that capacity. However, it will seldom give the reader any indication that a common evangelical belief may have no support in the biblical text.

[Suzana]

My tentative conclusions are that there are verses in which the Alexandrian better preserves the likely original, and others where the TR does so. However, this cannot be known with certainty, and an insistence that we must attain such certainty, could well be recognized as one of the more unambiguous symptoms of OCD.

What does OCD stand for?

Just curious, sorry if I've missed a prior reference, or if it's something really simple and obvious.

[SteveF]

My tentative conclusions are that there are verses in which the Alexandrian better preserves the likely original, and others where the TR does so. However, this cannot be known with certainty, and an insistence that we must attain such certainty, could well be recognized as one of the more unambiguous symptoms of OCD.

What does OCD stand for?

Just curious, sorry if I've missed a prior reference, or if it's something really simple and obvious.

Hi Suzana, I assumed he meant Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Referring to someone as OCD is a common expression in my neck of the woods and seemingly in Steve G's as well (if my assumptions are correct). I've heard Australians are not as introspective and neurotic as North Americans (we're constantly analyzing ourselves...psychology is huge up here), hence the likely reason you haven't heard of this psychological buzz word.

If I got Steve G wrong then he can let both of us know what he meant.