Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

“If every man’s humour were followed, there would be no end of translating.” Thus spoke Richard Bancroft, bishop of London, at the Hampton Court conference of 1604, where the proposal was first put forward for a new version of Scripture which would become the King James Version. However, everyone’s humor cannot be followed. Translating the Bible is an ambitious and expensive undertaking. No fresh translation or revision of an existing translation can be justified without a clear and distinct purpose.

There are two factors that demand new versions or revisions from time to time: advances in biblical scholarship and linguistic change. Two additional factors make new versions at least desirable in the judgments of many: confessional translation and specific audiences. These four factors are by no means mutually exclusive, and a new version may meet more than one of these needs. In addition, occasional individuals accomplish the tour de force of translating the Bible, or at least the NT, on their own, often for no other reason than the simple challenge and the love of Scripture. In addition, theory and practice shift from time to time, and translations produced for any of the above reasons and by any group or individual will generally reflect some theory governing the practice of translation.

Advances in biblical scholarship

This is one of the reasons put forward by the translators of the KJV for their work, and it is one of the factors which require new versions or revisions to appear from time to time. These advances in scholarship are generally three in number.

Textual

Textual criticism, the scholarly attempt to arrive at a Hebrew or Greek text close to the form in which it left the hands of the original writers, was in its infancy at the time of the KJV, with scholars having access to the readings of few manuscripts and little critical means of evaluating different readings. During the 19th century especially a plethora of ancient manuscripts were discovered. By the end of that century so much more was known about the original text of the Bible, particularly of the NT, that a new version was needed that would translate a more accurate text. In the United States this need was met by the American Standard Version (a revision of the KJV) in 1901, as well as other translations appearing about the same time, such as the version by James Moffatt (1913-1924). Both were far more accurate than the KJV in presenting the real text of the Bible, but the ASV in particular made little effort to modernize the English. While the KJV had an archaic ring, at least charming and at most compelling, the ASV sounded simply peculiar. While the ASV, and to some extent Moffatt, was much used for several decades as a text in college and seminary classes, where accuracy was more important than effective style, the KJV continued to dominate liturgical use. The ASV was itself revised in 1952 as the Revised Standard Version. Even in that last half-century a significant amount of textual knowledge had become available, enabling the RSV to improve significantly over its immediate predecessor.

Today progress in textual criticism lies less in the discovery of new manuscripts than in new means of evaluating textual evidence. Future translations and revisions will benefit from this, as study of minuscules and lectionaries progresses, and as more data are available for computerized study. In the modern period it has never been necessary for translators to work directly from manuscripts; they have always had access to textual evidence through systems of footnoting in their printed Hebrew or Greek texts. Just as readers must rely on the work of the translators, translators must rely on the work of the textual critics, although translators are free to make their own textual decisions.

Lexicographical

The KJV preface admitted that the translators were forced to guess at the meaning of many seldom-used words, particularly in the OT. Since then knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek vocabularies has been greatly enlarged by the discovery of literary sources other than biblical. In the case of the OT, these sources have not necessarily even been in Hebrew, but in closely related languages. Study of similar roots in related languages (e.g., Arabic, Ugaritic) have enabled scholars to come to more informed opinions about the meaning of earlier unknown words; in many cases, there were unexpected meanings for well-known words. All modern versions of the OT have profited from this study, although none took it to greater lengths than the New English Bible (1970), which was widely faulted for too quickly adopting meanings that were still speculative. Much of this was corrected when the NEB was revised as the Revised English Bible (REB) in 1989.

In the NT, the discovery of many papyri, usually of a completely nonbiblical nature, made possible the understanding of the Greek vocabulary in ways not previously recorded in scholars’ lexicons. All recent versions rely on such work.

Literary

Since ca. 1960 literary studies have begun to impact translation theory and practice. The RSV (1952) had relegated to the footnotes Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53–8:11 on the textual grounds that these passages did not constitute part of the original text of the two Gospels. The second edition of the RSV (1977) restored these passages to the text, not on textual grounds, but on literary or canonical grounds. What constitutes canonicity if not continued use by the Church for centuries? The recognition that different genres of writing (e.g., poetry, prophecy, saga, proverbs, short story, history) may call for different approaches to translating manifested itself in the Today’s English Version (1976). We may expect these studies to affect translation much more in the future, in interesting ways.

Linguistic change

Even if our knowledge of the Bible were static, language is always fluid through time. Many parts of the KJV are now unintelligible. More dangerously, many parts are now understood in a way never intended by authors or translators, since the meaning of English words has so changed (e.g., “mansions” in John 14:2), as to some extent have the structures of English grammar. The great fault of the ASV was that it largely ignored contemporary English style in its effort to preserve the KJV text. This was addressed by the RSV, which provided not only a more accurate text but also a more modern form of English. It met with a great deal more success than its predecessor. But even the RSV was cautious. In the 1950s it was the usual style for people, even teenagers, to pray in the archaic conjugations and pronouns (“Thou dost . . .”), and the RSV left speech addressed to God in that style. In later decades that style vanished, even in some of the most formal liturgical situations, and the New Revised Standard Version (1989) eliminated archaic language altogether. This was never even considered by the TEV or the theologically conservative New International Version (1973-1978).

The most striking linguistic change in recent years has been the move to gender inclusive language. By the last decade of the 20th century some usages (e.g., avoidance of generic “man” or use of the masculine pronoun to refer to any person) had become well enough accepted that substantial revisions were made in existing versions incorporating such adjustment. Among these were the NRSV (1989; highly successfully), TEV (1993; fairly successfully), and REB (1989, less successfully). None of these went so far as to refrain from referring to God in masculine terms. In 1995 a revision of the NRSV NT and Psalms was published as an Inclusive Version, which went to great pains to avoid masculine references to God (e.g., Father, King) or even to the exalted Christ (though not to the earthly Jesus).

Linguistic change is unpredictable, and translators try to avoid slang and even colloquialisms, since many of these usages quickly become obsolete. It seems best to aim for an audience 25-35 years old, people whose speech is no longer marked by evanescent teenage slang, but which has not yet become fossilized.

Confessional translations

Occasionally new translations are made, or less frequently revisions, by members of a particular religious community. The results may be highly tendentious and useful only for that community (e.g., The New World Translation of the Watchtower Society [1951-1960]) or of broad ecumenical appeal (e.g., the New Jerusalem Bible [Roman Catholic, 1990]). Even the KJV may be said to be confessional. Intended to serve the needs of the Church of England (and no one else), it actually came to serve the needs of the high-church constituency against the interests of the Puritans.

When the RSV appeared in 1952 it was the first viable challenge ever to the sway of the KJV, and it was roundly condemned by many conservative church people. Much of the venom against it was politically inspired, since it was published during the height of the McCarthy anti-communist scare (some pointed out that the first edition had a red cover). Evangelical scholarship was weak at this time; for those who wanted an alternative to the “liberal” RSV, none better was available than the Berkeley Version (1949, 1959), theologically innocuous but rather odd in some ways. With the reemergence of theological strength among evangelicals in the latter part of the century, the NIV was produced to serve this community. It is a textually and translationally responsible version that became the best-selling English version in the United States. Its translational approach is fairly traditional, really not much different from the RSV, but it offered an alternative for conservative Christians still distrustful of the RSV’s background. Kenneth Taylor opened new ground for evangelicals with his “paraphrase” called the Living Bible (1971), freely reading his “rigid evangelical position” into the text with a breezy style marked by admirable turns of phrase. So successful was this that conservative scholarship was organized to produce a true translation inspired by Taylor’s stylistic approach: the New Living Translation (1996).

It is natural that English-speaking Jews would want a version translated by Jews. The first widely used Jewish version was that of the (American) Jewish Publication Society (1917). A more successful translation has been the New Jewish Publication Society Version (1962-1985). Either of these, but especially the latter, can be used helpfully and without qualms by Christian readers.

For English-speaking Roman Catholics, the Douai-Rheims version (1582-1610, heavily revised 1750) long served as the standard version. In the 20th century the Catholic faithful were attracted to Protestant versions which had received the Church’s imprimatur (e.g., RSV, TEV) before modern Catholic versions became available. Translations by Catholic scholars now in wide use are the New American Bible (1970; partially revised 1986, 1991) and the New Jerusalem Bible, a revision of the Jerusalem Bible of 1966. Many Protestants use these versions without hesitation.

Specific audiences

Most of the major translations of Scripture have been addressed to as broad an audience as possible, but some individuals and groups have sponsored versions addressed to the needs of special groups. In a sense, confessional translations are so directed; the Baptist scholars who produced the Improved Version (1912) had little expectation of its being used beyond Baptist circles. But transconfessional groups can be identified and targeted. The primary audience of the TEV was people who had learned English as a second language; it was written in “common English,” defined as English used with comfort by the highly-educated native speaker and with understanding by the poorly educated. The New Living Translation is intended for Christians of very conservative theological bent. The translations included in the Anchor Bible commentary series are intended for scholars.

Occasionally portions of the Bible are presented in the current slang of some group, such as teenagers or gang members. These have little permanent interest. One of the few to elicit wide attention was Clarence Jordan’s Cottonpatch Version, a clever transculturation into the language and life of the American South of 1968-1973. Today it throws light on the culture of the era to which it spoke.

Individual translations

Major translations of the Bible are virtually always the product of committee labors. (Six committees, totaling almost 50 people, translated the KJV.) Occasionally, however, individuals have translated a good portion if not the whole Bible. As early as 382 Jerome undertook the translation of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate (at least largely his work) at the request of Pope Damasus. More recently Helen Barrett Montgomery translated the NT (Centenary New Testament, 1924), sponsored by the American Baptist Publication Society. Robert G. Bratcher translated the NT of Today’s English Version (1966) for the American Bible Society. Others have seen a particular need or just a challenge. The first translation of the whole Bible in English was done largely by John Wyclif (ca. 1382). Several portions of the Bible were published from 1947 by J. B. Phillips, seeking at first a form he could use with people huddled underground escaping the air war over London. Ronald Knox, a Roman Catholic priest in England, translated the entire Bible from Latin (1945-1949) into a highly idiosyncratic English style. In 1995 Everett Fox published an English version of the Torah, seeking to convey the atmosphere of the ancient Hebrew while being compellingly readable.

Translation theory

Translations may be located anywhere between the two poles of formal equivalence (literal) and dynamic equivalence (free). A strictly literal translation would be largely unintelligible, but traditional translations, such as KJV, RSV, and NIV, have tended to translate sentence structures and figures of speech literally. These are usually perceived as intelligible and often normal, if sometimes a bit unusual for English. Dynamic equivalence (NEB, TEV) makes little if any attempt to preserve original sentence structure, but seeks to state the meaning of the text in natural contemporary idiom. Original metaphors may be retained if their meaning is clear to a contemporary readership. Today it seems clear that both types of translations have their place. Formal equivalence versions are convenient for academic study, dynamic equivalence for private reading. Both are used in public worship.

The current scene exhibits conflicting tendencies. The RSV was rendered more dynamic in the NRSV, while the NEB became less so in its revision as the REB. If the NIV serves the evangelical community well as a formal equivalence translation, perhaps the NLT will serve for a dynamic equivalence version.

Bibliography. L. R. Bailey, ed., The Word of God: A Guide to English Versions of the Bible (Atlanta, 1982); E. S. Frerichs, ed., The Bible and Bibles in America (Atlanta, 1988); S. Kubo and W. F. Specht, So Many Versions? Twentieth Century English Versions of the Bible, rev. ed (Grand Rapids, 1983); J. P. Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, 1991); H. M. Orlinsky and R. G. Bratcher, A History of Bible Translation and the North American Contribution (Atlanta, 1991); A. C. Partridge, English Biblical Translation (London, 1973).

Roger A. Bullard

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)