THREE RECENT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: a NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE Peter H. Davids* I. Introduction

JETS 46/3 (September 2003) 521–32 THREE RECENT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: A NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE peter h. davids* i. introduction As certainly noted in the other reviews in this series, the three translations under consideration in this review, The Message, the NET Bible or New English Translation (The net), and the English Standard Version (esv) dif- fer radically in purpose and therefore tone. The net is full of notes, both study notes and translator’s notes, which include transliterated Greek, Greek characters, and textual information (including the traditional sym- bols of a selection of textual witnesses). In linguistic tone it has chosen to be a relatively contemporary study Bible. The esv, on the other hand, deliber- ately seeks to be traditional, to emulate the stately English of the rsv and older translations. My edition came without significant notes other than cen- tral column cross references. The Message is unabashedly contemporary in its language, aiming at an audience that is, if anything, unfamiliar with the Bible. These three are diverse indeed. In two ways all three are similar. First, all are computer-friendly. The net is freely available on the web as well as purchasable in the Logos/Li- bronix system, while the other two came with accompanying CDs for use on my computer. Thus even a traditional translation is not so traditional as to be only a paper product. Since I do not carry a paper Bible outside my home and office (I have German, Greek, Hebrew, and English versions on my HP Jornada, which is always with me and far handier to use), this admission of contemporary reality is welcome. To my knowledge only the net and esv have a Windows CE version; perhaps the audience of The Message would be un- likely to use such a version. The one caveat I must add is that I had to in- stall a new program on my desktop computer to run the esv and The Message, for I did not find esv available in my normal biblical software and chose not to pay to unlock The Message. Second, all use the paragraph as the primary division of the text, The Message (in the printed edition) leaving out verse numbers altogether and the esv putting them in bold superscript where they are not too obtrusive. The net puts them in bold regular type with the chap- ter number repeated for each verse, which is a rather irritating feature if one wishes to read more than a verse or two. When we move beyond the outward features, it is fair to ask, “How does one review a Bible translation?” Since we are not critiquing the content of what is being translated (as one might with a translated NT commentary * Peter Davids is scholar in residence at the Vineyard Church, Stafford, TX 77477. 522 journal of the evangelical theological society or monograph), we need to examine the effectiveness of the translation in communicating the message of the original text. As an active scholar who both teaches seminary students and works within the context of a church, I have two constituencies in view. Thus my main consideration will be how helpful each of these translations will be to one or the other of the constituencies. Will The Message assist someone new to an Alpha course in under- standing what God wishes to say to him or her? It is clearly not aimed at the seminary student or even the elders in the local church. Will the net actually assist a pastor or serious student of the Scripture to understand it better? Will the esv be especially helpful to some constituency in the Church? These are the questions that need to be raised. Furthermore, as the reader will quickly see, “helpful” or “assist” means both “communicate understandably” and “communicate the sense of the underlying Greek text accurately.” Neither side of the balance can be neglected. Before turning to some sample passages, a general comment is in order. When it comes to communicating the Greek text, the net, as noted above, has textual notes. From my point of view, the limited selection of witnesses is well-chosen as far as it goes, but one should be aware that the selection is indeed limited. For example, the papyrus witnesses to the catholic epistles are absent and the Byzantine tradition is represented by a single uncial (W). The question this raises is, “Who would use these notes?” Does a per- son who is reading the Bible in English need even such limited textual notes, especially if she reads no Greek? Should not those who can read Greek be referred to a critical Greek text where they can compare various readings in Greek? This is a significant general issue that the net raises when one asks how useful it is to its putative constituency. It also raises the question of ex- actly who makes up this constituency. ii. examples With that question raised, let us turn to specifics. We will look at how each translation handles a series of four texts, texts chosen more or less at random from Paul, the Gospels, and the general epistles, which should bring out the differences among the translations. 1. Example 1. 1 Cor 7:1 – 5 (in each case the full paragraph is included to reveal differences in paragraph divisions). net The Message esv 7:1 Now with regard to Now, getting down Now concerning the the issues you wrote to the questions you matters about which about: “It is good for a asked in your letter to you wrote: “It is good man not me. First, Is it a good for a man not to have to touch a woman thing to have sexual sexual relations with a sexually.” 7:2 But relations? woman.” [2] But because of [2] Certainly—but because of the immoralities, each man only within a certain temptation to sexual three recent bible translations: a nt perspective 523 should have his own context. It’s good for a immorality, each man wife and each woman man to have a wife, and should have his own her own husband. 7:3 for a woman to have a wife and each woman A husband should give husband. Sexual drives her own husband. [3] to his wife her sexual are strong, but The husband should rights, and likewise a marriage is strong give to his wife her wife to her husband. enough to contain them conjugal rights, and 7:4 It is not the wife and provide for a likewise the wife to her who has the rights to balanced and fulfilling husband. [4] For the her own body, but the sexual life in a world of wife does not have husband. In the same sexual disorder. [3] The authority over her own way, it is not the marriage bed must be a body, but the husband husband who has the place of mutuality—the does. Likewise the rights to his own body, husband seeking to husband does not have but the wife. 7:5 Do not satisfy his wife, the wife authority over his own deprive each other, seeking to satisfy her body, but the wife does. except by agreement husband. [4] Marriage [5] Do not deprive one for a definite time, so is not a place to “stand another, except perhaps that you may devote up for your rights.” by agreement for a yourselves to prayer. Marriage is a decision limited time, that you Then resume your to serve the other, may devote yourselves relationship, so that whether in bed or out. to prayer; but then Satan may not tempt [5] Abstaining from sex come together again, so you because of your lack is permissible for a that Satan may not of self-control. 7:6 I say period of time if you tempt you because of this as a concession, not both agree to it, and if your lack of self-control. as a command.7:7 I it’s for the purposes of wish that everyone was prayer and fasting—but as I am. But each has only for such times. his own gift from God, Then come back one this way, another together again. Satan that. has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. [6] I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence— only providing my best counsel if you should choose them. None of the translations makes the mistake of the niv, “It is good for a man not to marry” (this is corrected in the tniv). Both the net and the esv cor- rectly translate the sexual idiom as “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Both indicate through quotation marks (and the net also through a note) that this is probably a quotation of a statement made in the Corinthian letter to Paul. Here The Message misses the sense with the 524 journal of the evangelical theological society translation, “First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations? Certainly— but only within a certain context.” On the contrary, both here and in 7:6–9 Paul indicates that he approves of abstinence from sexual relations, but real- izes that such abstinence is not practical, since it would lead to immorality on the part of those not having Paul’s gift of celibacy. The Message signifi- cantly softens Paul’s bias towards singleness/celibacy. However, neither the net nor the esv is totally understandable after 7:1. The net’s “because of immoralities” is literal, but unusual English usage.

Load more