No One Version of the Bible is THE Most Accurate or THE Only True Version
When you are reading your favourite version of the New Testament (NT)—be it the NIV, the KVJ, the NRSV, the NASV, the ESV, etc.—do you know what you are reading? You are reading one version of the NT and not the true, the only, or even the most accurate (etc.) version of the NT. There are three reasons why your favourite version of the NT is not “the true, the only, or even the most accurate version of the NT.
1. We do not possess any of the twenty-seven original writings that make up the New Testament—nothing that is really close to the originals.
2. There are literally thousands of ancient manuscripts (mostly partial, and some just tiny fragments) of the books of the New Testament available which textual critics have spent their lives examining (down to the smallest letter and the least stroke of the pen) in order to produce what they think might be represent the original writings.
3. Experts in first century Greek use these “reconstructed Greek texts” from which to translate Greek into English (or any other modern language), and there is no such thing as a “word-for-word” correspondence between Greek and any other language.
Further Explanation is Needed
Textual critics invest the majority of their adult lives making what they believe are the best decisions about which of the many options provided by the thousands of partial, and often fragmentary, Greek manuscripts, are most likely to best represent the original. But textual critics disagree, among themselves, all the time on which choices are the best ones. Thus, their recreated Greek texts are full of footnotes that explain why they made the decisions that they did in each and every case.
Translators then take these reconstructed Greek texts and attempt to translate them into a modern language. These translators usually work in teams (i.e., committees) and represent various denominations, so that there is less chance (but not zero chance) of doctrinal bias creeping into the translation. There are also different theories on how best to translate one language into another in a way that best represents what the original authors were trying to communicate. Translation always requires a level of interpretation, since the translators can’t ask the authors directly what their intent was. These scholars spend their lives learning and striving to improve their knowledge and skills.
Textual critics and translators are unknown (to most) and unsung heroes. If they did not choose to invest their lives in such scholarly pursuits and a lifetime of learning, we would not have any version of the Bible that we could read. Some of the earliest translators of the Bible were excommunicated, imprisoned, tortured and executed! To imply, that somehow these behind-the-scenes and unappreciated workers are somehow engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent or edit out portions of the biblical text, could not be further from the truth! Unless you and I could read Greek (and Hebrew and Aramaic) and had access to the ancient manuscripts of the biblical texts, we would have no biblical texts to read today. Think about it. You may prefer one version over another. You may not like how one version is too simplistically translated or how another is too academically worded. However, in the end you have not one version but many versions you, in your own language, that you can read, meditate on and study to your heart’s content!
From this... 
To this...My Opinion as to the Usefulness of Various Versions
So, if you don’t read first century Greek—and even if you do—which English versions of the NT might be considered the most trustworthy? From least trustworthy to most trustworthy, here is my opinion:
· Denominationally created “translations” are often full of inaccuracies because the translator’s choices are not based on unbiased or collective scholarship but on doctrinal bias, with the unapologetic intention of promoting their denomination’s unique teaching. Probably the best example of this is the New World Translation completed in 1950 exclusively by and for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Where their translation disagrees with other versions, they claim that theirs is correct and the others are wrong. Call me a skeptic—because I am—but I avoid any translation that is the result of one denomination’s efforts.
· Paraphrases are the least useful for anything but casual reading because they are not translations of the Greek. A paraphrase is not the same thing as a translation. While a translation attempts to relate what the text of the NT says, a paraphrase attempts to explain the meaning of the translation. Therefore, the paraphrase is more like a commentary. Paraphrased translations use modern language and idioms to try to capture the thought and essence behind the original text. E.g., The Living Bible, The Message, The Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, Easy-to-Read Version, the Amplified Bible, etc. My advice for anyone who uses one of these versions as your favourite, is to also read from at least one or two committee translations (below). Paraphrases attempt to make the very ancient biblical texts modern. But they aren’t modern, they are ancient and need to be appreciated in their ancient contexts before they can be applied in our modern culture.
· Translations by one person lack the “check and balance” that is part of translations undertaken by multi-denominational committees. However, one-person translations are not necessarily inaccurate and sometimes are actually quite refreshing and eye-opening. Recently, I have enjoyed Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible. The preface to his translation and the footnotes within help explain both the principles and specifics of his translation choices. One-person translations, in my opinion, vary significantly depending on the knowledge, experience and integrity of the person who is translating.
· Translations by committees of multi-denominational scholars are the safest bet, but at times accommodations that are made sometimes allow for the continuation of traditional translations, which are often not accurate (or even actual translations). My pet peeves include words like “baptism,” “angel,” and “deacon” which are not translations of Greek, but transliterations (see chart below). Examples of other accommodations include translating “ekklesia” as “church,” “doulos” as “servant” and representing the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH as “LORD.” There are many others, where non-translations by early English translators are maintained which actually obscure the meaning(s) of the original Greek.
Bottom line, my advice for those of us who cannot fluently read and grasp the full significance of first century Greek, (or in the case of the Old Testament biblical Hebrew) is to read from a variety of English translations. My personal suggestion is that everyone should have a copy of the NET Bible (with translator notes). I don’t think this translation is always the best, but it is transparent. There are over 60,000 translator notes that explain why the translators chose the word or phrase that they did and often have a more “literal” or “alternate” translation in the notes. This version is available in both digital and print versions. For more information, see https://netbible.com/
Appendix – Examples of Untranslated/Mistranslated Words
English Word | Greek/Hebrew Word | Meaning of Greek/Hebrew Word |
Baptism | Baptisma – βάπτισμα | immersion, submersion |
Angel | Angelos – ἄγγελος | a messenger, envoy, one who is sent |
Deacon | Diakanos – διάκονος | minister, servant, one who executes the commands of another |
Christ | Christos – Χριστός | anointed = Hebrew “Messiah” which also means “anointed” |
Church | Ekklesia – ἐκκλησία | assembly, gathering of citizens |
Servant | Doulos – δοῦλος | slave, one who serves in obedience to another’s will |
LORD | Yahweh – יְהוָֹה | the proper name of the God of Israel, unpronounced by Jews, sometimes referred to as “the Name” or the tetragrammaton. |
No comments:
Post a Comment