BIBLE TRANSLATIONS (AND WHICH TRANSLATION I WILL PREACH FROM AND WHY) BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES ‣ Bible translations straddle two “worlds”: ‣ Ancient world ‣ Modern world BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES ‣ A good Bible translation is: ‣ (1) Faithful to the biblical text in its original languages (ancient world) ‣ (2) Accessible to 21st- century English speakers and readers (modern world) (1) FAITHFUL TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT ‣ Accurately translates what the author(s) originally meant ‣ Theologically conservative translators (1) FAITHFUL TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT ‣ Word-for-word (“literal”) is not always better. Why? ‣ Ancient world had different way of communicating than modern world. ‣ Some idioms simply don’t translate. ‣ Word-for-word leans too heavily toward the ancient world. Assuming that what was commonplace for them is commonplace for us today. ‣ Can make it more difficult for modern readers to understand. LITERAL = BETTER? ‣ Thusly for loved the God the world so that the son only one he gave so that every one the believing into him no perish but have life eternal. ‣ John 3:16! ‣ If a person from another culture were to ask me what I meant when I ordered “apple pie à la mode” at a restaurant, I could respond: “apple pie by the fashion.” ‣ Moo, Douglas, “The New International Version,” Which Bible Translation Should I Use? (Nashville: B&H, 2012). (2) ACCESSIBLE TO 21ST-CENTURY ENGLISH SPEAKERS ‣ Biblical languages written in the common languages of the day ‣ Hebrew in the OT times ‣ Greek in the NT times (2) ACCESSIBLE TO 21ST-CENTURY ENGLISH SPEAKERS ‣ Greek: ‣ Not classical (formal) Greek ‣ “Koine” Greek ‣ Common language of the Greeks ‣ A shared language (2) ACCESSIBLE TO 21ST-CENTURY ENGLISH SPEAKERS ‣ Thought-for-thought (or paraphrasing) is not always better. ‣ Why? ‣ The more the translators communicate via thought-for-thought, the more interpreting they do ‣ Deemphasizes the biblical concepts ‣ Leans too heavily in the modern world Bible Translations Chart Word-for-word (“formal”) (of those translated by Greek/Hebrew Interlinear New American Standard Bible conservative scholars) King James/New King James Keep Greek/ Hebrew word English Standard Version order Holman Christian Standard Bible New International Version New Living Translation New Century Version The Message Rearrange Greek/Hebrew word order as necessary Thought-for-thought (“dynamic”) PRACTICAL ‣ Question: So which translation philosophy should I use (as this church’s pastor)? Word-for-word or thought-for-thought? ‣ Answer: A translation that is somewhere in the middle—balancing the ancient and the modern world. BIBLE TRANSLATION OPTIONS ‣ Three options that fit the criteria: ‣ Holman Christian Standard Bible ‣ English Standard Version ‣ New International Version BIBLE TRANSLATION OPTIONS ‣ Why not the King James, or New King James, or New American Standard Bible? ‣ KJV: While still faithful to the biblical text, its last update was almost 250 years ago, so it no longer communicates to today’s English speaker. ‣ NKJV: Uses textual criticism based on outdated manuscript evidence. Tries too hard to be an updated KJV, instead of trying to be faithful to the biblical text. ‣ NASB: Very wooden. Doesn’t flow well in English. HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE ‣ Pros: ‣ Capitalizes pronouns of deity (e.g., “Him,” “He,” etc.) ‣ Cons: ‣ Not commonly used ‣ Awkward phrasing at points ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION ‣ Pros: ‣ Poetic; “sounds” like the Bible ‣ The most popular among Reformed theologians/authors and pastors ‣ Fantastic marketing; wonderful hard copy editions available ‣ Cons: ‣ Often defers to tradition over clarity ‣ Slow to accept that something has become outdated in English usage ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION ‣ Translation philosophy: ‣ “The ESV is an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on "word-for-word" correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.” OBJECTIONS ‣ Objections? ‣ Q1: Shouldn’t the Bible sound like the Bible? (older and formal?) ‣ Q2: Are you sure Bible translations should be “modern” or “accessible”? Why can’t they just stay the same? SHOULDN’T THE BIBLE *SOUND* LIKE THE BIBLE? ‣ Q1: Shouldn’t the Bible sound like the Bible? (older and formal?) ‣ “Despite a common perception, the KJV is not written in ‘Old English,’ but is instead ‘Modern’— though that does not mean it is not archaic… by contemporary standards.” ‣ Older forms (e.g., “thee,” “thou,” “-est,” “eth”) were used simply because translators were instructed to change the Bishop’s Bible as little as possible. ‣ Linguistic conservative despite contemporary usage. ‣ Decker, “400 Years of the KJV, “ November 28, 2011. WHY “ACCESSIBLE”? ‣ Q2: Are you sure Bible translations should be “modern” or “accessible”? ‣ Genesis 1:1-2: ‣ The Word on the Street: “First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all up and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! The cosmos is in chaos: no shape, no form, no function—just darkness… total. And floating above it all, God’s Holy Spirit, ready to play.” WHY “ACCESSIBLE”? ‣ Q2: Why “modern” and “accessible”? ‣ Answer the question with a question: Which Bible version has this in its preface? ‣ “Without translation into the common tongue, the uneducated are like children trying to draw water out of a deep well without a bucket or something to draw with….” ‣ Answer: KJV 1611! ‣ “Without translation into the vulgar (common) tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) without a bucket or something to draw with….” WHY “ACCESSIBLE”? ‣ Q: Why “accessible”? ‣ A: (1) English changes; therefore Bible translations should not be static and unchanged. WHY “ACCESSIBLE”? ‣ Translations change because language changes: ‣ NIV: 1978 —> 1984 —> 2005 (TNIV) —> 2011* ‣ ESV: 2001 —> 2007 —> 2011 ‣ KJV (1611) —> RV (1885) —> ASV (1901) —> RSV (1952 & 1971) —> ESV (2001) ‣ NLT: 1996 —> 2004 ‣ HCSB: 1999 —> 2000 —> 2002 —> 2003 ‣ KJV: Tyndale (1535) —> Geneva (1560) —> Bishop’s Bible (1568) —> 1611 —> … —> … — > 1769 (Blaney) WHY “ACCESSIBLE”? ‣ Q: Why “accessible”? ‣ A: (2) Americans aren’t the only people who use English as their language. ‣ Canada, UK, India, etc. all speak English as well. WHY “ACCESSIBLE”? ‣ Q: Why “accessible”? ‣ A: (3) Not everyone has grown up with a “traditional” Bible version… ‣ …Nor does everyone understand the same level of difficulty of English. WHY “ACCESSIBLE”? ‣ Q: Why “accessible”? ‣ A1. Because language changes ‣ A2. Americans aren’t the only people who use English as their language. ‣ A3. Not everyone has grown up with a “traditional” Bible version, nor does everyone understand the same level of difficulty of English. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—HISTORY ‣ History: ‣ Howard Long - Christian businessman. ‣ 1965 - scholars started meeting to start a new translation after a decade of discussion. ‣ The Committee on Bible Translation —> New International Version of the Bible. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—TRANSLATION PHILOSOPHY ‣ Translation philosophy: ‣ “Getting the words right means being true to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic of the Bible. But it also means being true to the reader — capturing the Bible’s original meaning in natural, everyday English. ‣ “That’s what sets the NIV Bible apart. It doesn’t sacrifice precision for clarity or the other way around. It delivers both, all in a Bible translation you’ll love to read.” NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—COMMITTEE ‣ Committee members: ‣ 15 members. ‣ Are all devoted to the Lord. ‣ All agree on the authority of Scripture. ‣ All evangelical but diverse. ‣ 12 different denominations. ‣ All English-speakers, but not all American: USA, Canada, UK, and India. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—CONS ‣ Cons: ‣ Some say it leans too much toward the “thought-for-thought” side of the scale ‣ Doesn’t “sound” like the Bible ‣ Declining in popularity in some circles due to widespread ESV’s acceptance among Reformed authors/pastors NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—PROS ‣ Pro—Widely accepted ‣ NIV is still the best-selling modern English version of all time. 450 million copies sold. ‣ Any Christian bookstore you visit will certainly carry the NIV. ‣ Utilized not just in the USA but in other English-speaking countries as well. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—PROS ‣ Pro—Well-respected ‣ Reformed theologians like D. A. Carson, Doug Moo, Bruce Waltke, and Tim Keller use the NIV in writing and preaching. ‣ Lots of Christian authors use the NIV for their Bible references. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—PROS ‣ Pros—Readable ‣ Not only is the NIV faithful to the text, but also to be understandable and accessible to a general English audience ‣ Easy for new believers to understand ‣ Easy to read aloud (“…devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture”—1 Timothy 4.13) ‣ NIV reads most like a modern-day book (new paragraph when speaker changes, etc.) NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—PROS ‣ Pros—Tradition ‣ The King’s Chapel is used to hearing preaching from the NIV. ‣ No one here regularly uses ESV (so far as I am aware). NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION—LUKE 22.31–32 ‣ ESV: ‣ “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” ‣ NIV: ‣ “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail.” HOW IS NIV ACCESSIBLE? ‣ Q: How has the NIV determined what is “accessible”? ‣ A: Careful research about the state of the English language. HOW IS NIV ACCESSIBLE? ‣ Careful research: ‣ “Collins Report” from Collins Dictionaries— largest databank of English in the world. 4.4 billion words. ‣ Conclusions: Came up with a set of guidelines from this report (not from personal experience or ideological agenda). ‣ Every word examined in light of “Collins Report” and the context of the passage at hand.