| We now move from the subject of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to the English translations
available today. It must be understood that there is no such thing as a true literal
translation. Instead, there is a spectrum, a graduation. Translation is not a
pure mechanical process, and is never completely divorced from interpretation.
The desired end product is a rendering that means what the original means, but
is written in a way that we can understand. The translators of Scripture take
three approaches:
Literal translations:
These are attempts to render the original languages as literal as possible,
even at the expense of readability sometimes. The best examples are the KJV,
The NKJV and the NASB.
Paraphrases:
Paraphrases represent the opposite approach, sacrificing accuracy for readability.
Works such as the Living Bible, Phillips, and The Message, are all highly readable
but represent more the interpretation of the author than a translation of the
text. These may have value as a comparison but are of little use as a legitimate
translation.
Free translation:
Works such as the NIV attempt to blend the best of accuracy and faithfulness
to the text, with readability that gives clear and easy understanding. This
necessitates a great deal more interpretation on the translators part than a
strictly literal translation. For example, in Rom 8:3-9 the NASB consistently
translates "sarkos" as "flesh," which is the literal translation
of the word. The NIV, on the other hand, in its attempt to help us understand
what "sarkos" means, translates it in a number of ways: "sinful
nature," "man," "sinful man," and "sinful."
While the NIV’s translation may be more easily understood and more similar
to the way we talk today, the question is, "Is it accurate?"
A study of the above passage shows that it actually causes more confusion.
The NIV’s translation boils down to an interpretation with which many Bible
students would disagree. On the other hand, how many modern readers understand
what it means to be "in the flesh?" And how many would study to find
out? These are the dilemmas that the translator faces. It might be added that
both the KJV and the NKJV translates "sarkos" two different ways in
this passage: as "flesh" and as "carnal." So, in this passage
anyway, the NASB is the most consistent and literal of the three translations.
The literal translations, such as the KJV, NKJV and the NASB, are superior
especially for the purpose of serious study because of their accuracy. While
they may be more difficult to read in places, the believer who truly desires
to understand truth will get beyond this problem, without having to deal with
the confusion that the freer translations invite. On the other hand, one might
recommend one of the free translations, such as the NIV, for new Christians,
children, or for general reading.
THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
A brief history of our English translations might be of interest at this point.
It should be noted that godly leaders have always attempted to put the Bible
in the language of the people in order that they might "Grow in respect
to salvation" (I Pet 2:2). The Old Testament was originally written in
Hebrew and Aramaic and was translated into a Greek version, the Septuagint,
approximately 200 years before Jesus walked the earth. The Vulgate was a Latin
translation of the whole Bible, by the scholar Jerome in A.D. 405. This version
of the Bible was known as the Vulgate because it was in the vulgar, or common
language of the people.
It was not until 1380 that the first English translation was produced, by John
Wycliffe. The English government opposed this work, eventually even passing
a law against any English translations. Those who resisted found themselves
persecuted. Wycliffe was so hated that his remains were exhumed and burned in
1428.
It would be almost 150 years before another translation of the English Bible
was published, this time by William Tyndale. Again the English government and
clergy opposed this work, and King Henry VIII issued a proclamation in 1530
that the translation, and circulation, of the Scriptures in the common language
of the people be forbidden. Tyndale’s famous response was, "I defy
the Pope and all of his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause
a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost."
Tyndale was able to follow through on this threat, but ultimately died a martyr
for his efforts.
Persecution was unable to stop the translation of Scripture into the English
language. In 1535 the Coverdale Bible was published, followed by the Matthews
in 1537 and the Great Bible in 1539. The next important translation was the
Geneva Bible (1560), which was translated by Christian refugees who fled Britain
during the reign of Queen Mary. Since the translation was produced in Geneva,
Switzerland it became known as the Geneva Bible. But the real significance of
this work was that it contained marginal notes, of both a doctrinal and practical
nature, which became very controversial due to their Reformed theology, and
their apparent disdain of kings. It was the Geneva Bible which the Puritans
studied and brought to America on the Mayflower. The Pilgrims hated the King
James Version and would not even allow it in the colonies for years. The Geneva
Bible would be the preeminent English translation for seventy-five years. As
a side note, it was also known as the "Breeches Bible" because of
its reading of Genesis 3:7, "And they sewed fig leaves together, and
made themselves breeches." Two other popular translations of the day
were the Bishop Bible (1568), which was the work of Archbishop Parker and sanctioned
by Queen Elizabeth, and the Douay Bible of 1582 which was a Roman Catholic translation.
It was between 1607 and 1611 that the greatest of all English translations
of the Bible — the King James Version — took place. Forty-seven scholars,
working in several teams, produced the greatest piece of translation that the
world had ever seen. Its accuracy and beauty has endeared the KJV to millions
for almost four hundred years. King James I of England had sanctioned a new
translation (although it never was given an official civil or ecclesiastical
authorization despite the handle, "Authorized Version"). King James
was apparently not a believer, lived a very ungodly life and hated the Puritans.
However, because of the popularity of the Geneva Bible with its anti-king sentiment,
he felt threatened. He called for a new translation; he did away with all marginal
notes; and he used some Puritans as translators to insure its acceptability.
Although the KJV would undergo numerous revisions over the years (the modern
KJV is very different from the original) there would not even be a major attempt
at a new translation until the 1881 Revised Version and its American
cousin, The American Standard Version of 1901.
These two translations, and almost all that have followed them, are based on
the Westcott and Hort Greek NT rather than The Textus Receptus. This fact has
set up the debate that still lingers among many, concerning which translation
is more accurate (see The Bible Translations Debate Part I).
Some King James-only advocates, refer to the NASB and NIV (and sometimes even
the NKJV) as corrupt translations. They usually attempt to point to the differences
between the translations that they believe are attempts to subvert the true
meaning of the Word of God. For example, they claim that the NASB and the NIV
do not use the word "blood" as often as the KJV, which is supposed
to prove that the NASB and NIV are soft on the issue of atonement.
Besides being pure nonsense, the fact is that all translations could be challenged
by such criteria. For example, even David Hunt, a supporter of the KJV, admits
that when it comes to declaring the deity of Christ, the modern versions excel.
He says, "There are eight verses in the New Testament that clearly declare
that Jesus is God: Jh. 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; II Thes. 1:12; Titus 2:13;
Heb. 1:8; II Pet. 1:1; and Rev. 1:8. The KJV is clear in four of these (Jh.
1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; and Heb. 1:8), whereas the NASB and NIV are clear
in seven of the eight (the same four plus Titus 2:13; II Pet. 1:1; and Rev.
1:8). . . If the situation was the other way around. . . Some KJV-only advocates
would surely accuse the modern versions of down playing Christ’s deity"
(Berean Call, Jan, 1995).
I personally believe that the Bible translations debate is blown way out of
proportion by some. Rather than fighting over which translation is superior,
we might do well to spend more time reading one of the great translations, especially
the NASB, the KJV, the NKJV and perhaps the NIV. For further reading on this
issue I would recommend:
The Men Behind the King James Version, by Gustavus S. Paine.
The King James Version Debate, a Plea for Realism, by D. A. Carson.
What You Should Know About Bible Translations, by G. Christian Weiss.
|
