I have really enjoyed becoming familiar with the Berean Literal Bible (BLB).
I had previously dabbled with Young's Literal Translation but I had a few issues with it:
a) the archaic wording
b) the fact it was based on the Textus Receptus (TR), which I do not hold to be particularly reliable
c) the fact it was the work of a single translator of old who was self-taught (concerns mentioned above by
@pescador)
The BLB is the first modern truly "literal" (as much as is possible without being totally incomprehensible) translation, so I was excited to discover it, and I've consequently found it interesting to see how much supposedly "word-for-word" translations like the ESV and NASB still do insert their own interpretations of meaning into the text.
While there are other interlinears, the fact that the websites that carry the BSB/BLB make it easy to switch to the Berean's own interlinear makes it especially accessible to help verify what the text actually says.
Also, I was pleased to find that the BLB is based on the Critical Text (CT), which I think represents a good, scholastic effort to ensure that the text we have is as close as possible to the original manuscripts. There are some good arguments on the Majority/Byzantine Text (MT or BYZ, same thing) side that I see some validity in, and while I don't necessarily place full faith in the older-but-more-distant-and-smaller-number Alexandrian copies, I think the process the authors of the CT undergo at least allows for academic consideration of all evidence rather than arbitrarily picking something.
It's interesting to note that almost all modern translation efforts are based on the CT. However, it wasn't until the BLB came out that we got a proper literal translation based on the CT.
Interestingly, despite a large following of the MT in the more studious branches of evangelical Christianity, there are few translations based on it. I believe the World English Bible (WEB) is the only major one; another effort that hasn't gotten a lot of notice but that intrigues me is the Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT).
It's worth noting that the KJV and NKJV are both based on the TR, which is closer to the MT than the CT, so those holding to Byzantine accuracy may find it useful. However, the TR it is replete with errors, typos, and back-translations to Greek from the Latin Vulgate, so I don't count it as a particularly accurate or faithful representation of the original manuscripts.
I think it's obvious that I don't hold a position of any divine inspiration or providential preservation of the TR or the KJV, which is the position that most KJV-Onlyists hold, the rest being ultra-fundamentalists who would probably seriously believe the statement that "
If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." While I don't agree with them, those who believe in providential preservation of the original text via the TR and KJV at least have a rational basis for their stance; I have a much harder time respecting the anti-scholarship fundamentalists. Not to say that everyone who loves the KJV is crazy--I do understand that many here prefer the KJV (in spite of its scholastic shortcomings) because of its beautiful literary quality or because it's what they grew up familiar with, but I grew up in the '90s reading the NIV, so I don't hold any particularly special affection for the KJV and find it difficult to read. That, combined with the fact that it is objectively not the best translation (unless you do hold to absolute providential preservation) is why I discount it for my personal reading and study.
That said, I would not disagree with anyone who says that all three texts and any of the major translations based upon them contain the whole of the Word of God and are sufficient for salvation. However, I do personally appreciate an effort to ensure that what I am reading is as close as possible to what originally came from the hands of those whom the Spirit directly inspired.
Anyway, all that is background on why I like the BLB.
The Berean
Study Bible (BSB), on the other hand...well, the jury's still out for me on that one. On the one hand, it doesn't seem to me to be all that different from other word-for-word translations based on the CT, such as the ESV--at least its stated goals don't seem to differ, and while wordings and phraseology differ slightly (as any translation will), it seems to read very similarly to the ESV. On the other hand, I do appreciate that the translation team that worked on the BSB also worked on the BLB, which illustrates the high view they have of literal translation.
Also, they self-admit that while the translation team is smaller than the large group that worked on the ESV, that smaller group means that everyone on the team worked on the whole work rather than dividing up in to committees that only worked on a few books each--meaning that the interpretations and style of writing should be more consistent throughout the entirety of the work. I don't know if that's a good thing or not, but it does sound like a rational explanation to me.
I did buy a printed version of the BSB NT and have enjoyed reading it (usually alongside the BLB in my BibleHub app--a printed parallel would be awesome!), and it was a very cheap $8 on ChristianBook.com (the translation itself is royalty-free, so the costs to purchase a printed version mostly go to cover the costs associated with printing). It's currently available in NT only--the OT hasn't been completed yet (there's a PDF draft on the BSB's website) but is scheduled to be released later this year with a full printed Bible on offer in 2019.
Anyway, I guess I just thought I'd post to give some insight into my understanding of the BSB/BLB and where they are coming from, but I'm still interested in others' perspectives on the topic, especially if it's an educated opinion! (Mine definitely isn't.)
One area that literal translations (like the BLB) fall down is when the wording in the original Greek actually illuminates a meaning that just can't quite be translated into English without adding words/phrases. If you have ever seriously studied a foreign language, you know that translating is never a 1:1 thing. One example is the German word "spazieren gehen," which loosely translates to "walk" or "stroll" in English--but when I visited my friends in Germany, there was a whole ethos surrounding the idea of "spazieren gehen"--usually involving a leisurely walk down a lovely wooded path with friends and family, talking and enjoying the scenery, perhaps even ending up with a dip in the lake at the end of the path. It's hard to translate that concept into English without adding a few words, like "taking a leisurely stroll with friends." Is that reading meaning into the word, or is that accurately translating the original language? Things like this are why translation is an art and a balancing act more than a science. You lose out on those nuances when you read a fully literal translation, but when you move to a less literal translation ("word for word" or even "thought for thought" or, horror of horrors, even a paraphrase!
), you end up having to put more trust in the translation team to accurately render what the original text means.
That's why I do on occasion enjoy reading the Amplified Bible, because it's not a paraphrase but does help to discern what the original language communicates by adding nuances of the word (the phrases in parentheses--I wish they had a version without the bracketed phrases that often read theological interpretation into the text that isn't present or necessary). I also wish they had done a better job in the 2015 update, which I am having a hard time getting behind.
The discussion upthread about the NET is intriguing to me. I might like to follow up on that and see if having access to those translators' footnotes would help my understanding.
