LostnFound said:
AARRRGGGGGGG, I can't read anymore!!! My brain is on fire! TOO MUCH INFORMATION!
Here is some more fuel for the fire.
Ancient Manuscripts
Modern translations are done using the entire collection of Greek and Hebrew documents and fragments of the bible that have been preserved. Obviously none of them are the "originals" that were penned by Moses, Paul, etc. but compared to other ancient documents, the bible is one of the most well preserved documents in human history in terms of the age and number of preserved manuscripts.
Some examples of these manuscripts are:
1.
Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BC - 1st century AD)
2.
Codex Vaticanus (4th century AD)
3.
Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD)
4.
Codex Alexandrinus (5th century AD)
5.
Masoretic Text (9th century AD)
It should be added that none of the above were available at the time of Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, the source materials for the KJV who relied on manuscripts dated from the 12th century and beyond.
Greek and Hebrew Compilations
Granted some of the documents and fragments have discrepancies between them and biblical scholars generally try to go with the older documents, although there is an element of decision making that does need to be done. Most modern translations use the Greek and Hebrew compilation primarily done by
Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland initially in 1897 with the latest revision in 1993 which is currently published by the United Bible Society. Notable bibles that use the United Bible Society versions as a source are the
NIV,
NASB,
NRSV. Another significant compilation was the one used in the translation of the
KJV called the
Textus Receptus which was created by
Erasmus beginning in 1516 with his final edition in 1535. Revisions are made as older manuscripts are discovered and the editors have a better grasp of the original languages or they change their mind on a word selection because of new evidence.
Translating into the modern language
Once a Greek and Hebrew compilation has been chosen as the source material, a translation into the modern language must be made. At this point, biblical scholars have many more choices to make in terms of word selection because as anyone with experience in multiple languages knows, one word in one language may not have an equivalent in another language or may have many equivalents depending on the context. And the grammar and sentence structure between languages is usually so different that a completely literal sequential translation would result in gibberish. This is especially true the further languages are from each other linguistically and historically. The decision process of selecting the appropriate words/phrases in most modern translations and the KJV was done by large groups of biblical scholars who agreed on a translation philosophy. They discussed and debated about the best translation for each verse within their philosophical framework. Some translations are done by individuals.
Literal "Word-for-Word" Translations
A decision has to be made by translators regarding the "literalness" of a translation because highly literal translations, while being more faithful to the structure and words of the source materials, tend to be more difficult for modern readers to comprehend since they are not familiar with the language and sentence structure of the original language. Although an element of interpretation is necessarily, the aim of literal translations is to minimize this. English examples of more literal translations are the
NASB,
KJV and
NRSV. I find literal translations highly useful for indepth bible studies.
Dynamic Equivalence "Thought-for-Thought" Translations
On the other hand "freer" translation philosophies allow the translator to diverge more from the literal wording and sentence structure to produce a translation more easily understood by modern readers. It requires more interpretation by the translator but still tries to remain faithful to source material. The
NIV is an example of this. I find free translations to be useful for general church audiences who many not be very experienced with in-depth bible studies, but I would recommend a literal translation as they get more involved in bible studies.
Paraphrase Translations
Finally paraphrase translations make very little attempts to follow the literal wording of their sources and the primary aim is to relate to the audience of their time with language and idioms of the time. These translations allow the bible to become similar to easy reading for those not interested in serious bible study but often diverge significantly from source material. Examples of this are
The Message and the Living Bible. I find that paraphase translations are useful for young people and newer Christians, although I would always recommend a free or literal translation to go along with reading a paraphrase translation.
Theological leanings
The theological leanings of the translators also has an impact in word selection depending on their theological view. Generally, NIV and NASB were translated by evangelicals while the NRSV was translated by theologically more liberal translators. The KJV was translated by Anglicans in the 1600s with contributions from both
conformist and
puritan scholars.
