On Versions of the Bible

[pescador]

I know the question is not for me but I will volunteer an opinion bec I do have a copy of the NET and use it regularly. The notes are undoubtedly fantastic and I'm quite honored to have access to them.

But the translation, IMO, is not the best or even one of the best. I consider it "idiomatic" and thus unreliable, especially in the NT, and would not use it alone.

What are your criteria for calling the NET unreliable? They explain virtually every phrase and/or verse in detail, including why they chose the English translation that they did.

What in your opinion is a better translation and why?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I was just looking at NET online at John 1 and DANG those are some detailed notes!!

 

[Andrewn]

What are your criteria for calling the NET unreliable? They explain virtually every phrase and/or verse in detail, including why they chose the English translation that they did.

What in your opinion is a better translation and why?

The best translation for you is the one you like and read. If you enjoy reading NET then it is the best translation for you. Every person has a different taste in language and we have a lot of versions to choose from precisely bec we have different tastes.

A word-for-word translation would not make sense in English so every translation involves a degree of interpretation of the text. Some versions are close to the wording of the original languages (literal translations). Other versions try to use more contemporary English at the expense of fidelity to the text (idiomatic translations). And still others are basically interpretations of the text (paraphrases).

I classify NET as an idiomatic translation. These, IMO, are not suitable for studying the NT and Psalms but are great for the rest of the OT. For the NT and Psalms, I'd rather read a literal translation. I recently compared the translation of Rom 8:1-13 in 16 versions including NET. According my criteria of accuracy and readability, it came somewhere in the middle. But this is only one person's opinion.

There is also another equalizer: the internet. One can compare 5 different versions at the same time on Bible Gateway, for example. I can be reading one version in print and 5 others online. I can also open KJV with Strong's numbers in another window. So, I'd be reading 7 versions at the same time. That's great, isn't it? I can even open another window with 5 more versions.

I attend Evangelical churches. When NRSV came out in 1989, it found strong resistance in Evangelical circles. So, I bought and disliked a lot of other translations over the years until I realized that NRSV was better (except in the Psalms and a few other verses in the OT). I consider that I was given a bad opinion and hate to give anyone else a bad opinion.

Great translations have been produced in the 21st century (without the NRSV problems). If you like NET, stick with it and compare other translations online. And let me know your opinion.

 

[hedrick]

If you don't have a good commentary, the notes in NET are really useful. In many cases where there are several ways to translate, they explain the difference.

 

[pescador]

The best translation for you is the one you like and read. If you enjoy reading NET then it is the best translation for you. Every person has a different taste in language and we have a lot of versions to choose from precisely bec we have different tastes.

A word-for-word translation would not make sense in English so every translation involves a degree of interpretation of the text. Some versions are close to the wording of the original languages (literal translations). Other versions try to use more contemporary English at the expense of fidelity to the text (idiomatic translations). And still others are basically interpretations of the text (paraphrases).

I classify NET as an idiomatic translation. These, IMO, are not suitable for studying the NT and Psalms but are great for the rest of the OT. For the NT and Psalms, I'd rather read a literal translation. I recently compared the translation of Rom 8:1-13 in 16 versions including NET. According my criteria of accuracy and readability, it came somewhere in the middle. But this is only one person's opinion.

There is also another equalizer: the internet. One can compare 5 different versions at the same time on Bible Gateway, for example. I can be reading one version in print and 5 others online. I can also open KJV with Strong's numbers in another window. So, I'd be reading 7 versions at the same time. That's great, isn't it? I can even open another window with 5 more versions.

I attend Evangelical churches. When NRSV came out in 1989, it found strong resistance in Evangelical circles. So, I bought and disliked a lot of other translations over the years until I realized that NRSV was better (except in the Psalms and a few other verses in the OT). I consider that I was given a bad opinion and hate to give anyone else a bad opinion.

Great translations have been produced in the 21st century (without the NRSV problems). If you like NET, stick with it and compare other translations online. And let me know your opinion.

You said, "I classify NET as an idiomatic translation. These, IMO, are not suitable for studying the NT and Psalms but are great for the rest of the OT. For the NT and Psalms, I'd rather read a literal translation."

When you say, "I'd rather read a literal translation" you realize there is no such thing, correct? There is no direct, one-to-one correspondence between ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek, so interpretation is always necessary.

Although I use several Bible versions I prefer the NET because it explains in detail -- over 60,000 times -- why the translators decided on the English that they used. No other translation that I know of is so transparent in their methodology. That's a long long way from claiming that a certain translation is THE word of God.

 

[Andrewn]

When you say, "I'd rather read a literal translation" you realize there is no such thing, correct? There is no direct, one-to-one correspondence between ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek, so interpretation is always necessary.

I acknowledged this fact in my previous message and wrote , "A word-for-word translation would not make sense in English so every translation involves a degree of interpretation of the text." But some translations are more literal than others. Here is a common classification:

NJAB - Comparison Chart of Bible Translations showing style or type of translation and readability or grade level

I don't agree with everything in that chart. For example, they consider NIV more literal than NET. I think NET is more reliable. There are other instances where I don't necessarily agree with the chart but there is no reason to get into this and unless someone is interested in debating it.

Although I use several Bible versions I prefer the NET because it explains in detail -- over 60,000 times -- why the translators decided on the English that they used.

This is great.

I bought a lot of different Bible versions over the years and they have been taking space without being used any longer. I was looking for the perfect translation and it took me time to realize that the translation I like for the NT doesn't have to be the one I like for the OT. The nature of the material and nature of Greek vs Hebrew are different.

As for NET, I'm quite happy with my purchase and use it quite frequently, especially the OT.

 

[pescador]

I acknowledge this fact in my previous message and wrote , "A word-for-word translation would not make sense in English so every translation involves a degree of interpretation of the text." But some translations are more literal than others. Here is a common classification:

NJAB - Comparison Chart of Bible Translations showing style or type of translation and readability or grade level

I don't agree with everything in that chart. For example, they consider NIV more literal than NET. I think NET is more reliable. There are other instances where I don't necessarily agree with the chart but there is no reason to get into this and unless someone is interested in debating it.


This is great. I bought a lot of different Bible versions over the years and they have been taking space without being used any longer. As for NET, I'm quite happy with my purchase and use it quite frequently, especially the OT.

That chart is interesting but misleading, especially the reading level data. Reading level is determined by computer programs that cannot decipher olde English correctly. They aren't designed to measure anything except modern English.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hello all. Recently I have become interested in studying different versions of the Bible. My Family and I normally have read the King James Version, and occasionally we have looked at the NIV, but I would like to extend my studies to learn the most about God's Word as possible.
So I would like to ask: what version of the Bible do you prefer and why? Which do you believe is the version that is most true to Christ's vision? Recently my young Niece has expressed interest in studying the Bible in more depth - which version would you recommend that is easy for a young girl (aged 9) to comprehend but is also as accurate as possible?

Thank you, XOXO God Bless.
-Chris

I think that the very nature of translation as a medium means that we can't have anything perfect. There is an Italian adage that goes, "Traduttore, traditore" meaning "The translator is a traitor". It means that the very act of translating will in some way betray the source. Even with this Italian saying a translation of it misses the nuance of wordplay that is in the original Italian. Word play, nuance, idiomatic expression, etc are all elements that inevitably are lost in translation.

So that means it is very important that we get over the idea that we can have a perfect translation. Translations can't be perfect, almost by definition.

That said, I think there are good translations and bad translations, and we can debate the merits of any given translation; but often it might be as nuanced of a debate as one translation does one thing really well, but another translation does something else even better; thus which is the better of the two translations?

With all that said, over the course of my life I've used the KJV, the NIV, the NKJV, the NASB, the NRSV, and the ESV, among others.

99% of the time when I quote Scripture on here I am using the ESV, though in the past I've also used the NRSV quite a bit. And I believe that presently both the ESV and NRSV represent perhaps the two main translations used by both Catholic and Protestant English-speaking Christians today. English-speaking Orthodox Christians, I believe, tend to use a modified form of the NKJV (IIRC, the NKJV New Testament, with a fresh translation of the Septuagint for the Old Testament).

It is also helpful to know the complexity of our source material. Very often one can read about there being two basic text-types, or manuscript families, the Byzantine and Alexandrian; where the Byzantine represents the majority of our manuscripts but also they tend to date later; and the Alexandria represents a minority of our manuscripts but they also tend to date earlier. This is basically true, but also a massive over-simplification. Because it's actually way more complicated than that, as there are Byzantine manuscripts with Alexandrian readings and vice versa. Not only that, but not all manuscripts fit into one or either category, there are other text-types, other families, such as the Caesarean text-type and the Western text-type.

Because of this, translators work from critical editions of the New Testament. A critical edition is a composite text drawn from a number of manuscripts. Examples of such critical editions include the five editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, the critical editions of Theodore Bezae and Stephanus (these being the source texts which the 1611 translators of the KJV used). Over the centuries since we also have the Westcott-Hort, though it isn't widely used, the Nestle-Aland, and others.

And thus far we are only talking the New Testament. The issue of the Old Testament is also complicated, but in other ways. Namely whether or not the later Masoretic Text of the middle ages should be used and regarded as more reliable than the older Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll textual tradition.

I hope this doesn't come across as overwhelming. But it is helpful information to know moving forward. At the end of the day it may depend entirely on what kind of Bible study one is doing, and how in depth one wants to go. For daily devotionals, I think it suffices only to have a decent translation--e.g. the ESV, NRSV, or any mainstream, well respected translation. The more indepth and deeper the study, the more things do start to get complex, and is why various study aids and scholarly tools can become increasingly more important.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrewn]

That chart is interesting but misleading, especially the reading level data. Reading level is determined by computer programs that cannot decipher olde English correctly. They aren't designed to measure anything except modern English.

True.

The chart is useful as a general guideline. For example, it is true that The Passion Translation is not a translation but a paraphrase. It is also true that NASB is a literal translation.

They always make these charts to show NIV right in the middle: the perfect translation if you will. I think this is misleading. Several translations that I consider to be literal enough they call them "thought for thought" which is probably to put them in the same category like NIV.

They consider ERV a paraphrase when it is quite similar to NCV (slightly lower reading level but basically the same translation). Are politics involved in these ratings?

Still, this is the most comprehensive chart I found and it's useful as a general guideline.

 

[pescador]

True.

The chart is useful as a general guideline. For example, it is true that The Passion Translation is not a translation but a paraphrase. It is also true that NASB is a literal translation.

They always make these charts to show NIV right in the middle: the perfect translation if you will. I think this is misleading. Several translations that I consider to be literal enough they call them "thought for thought" which is probably to put them in the same category like NIV.

They consider ERV a paraphrase when it is quite similar to NCV (slightly lower reading level but basically the same translation). Are politics involved in these ratings?

Still, this is the most comprehensive chart I found and it's useful as a general guideline.

I agree except for one statement... The NASB is a literal translation. There is no such thing. It is impossible to translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek literally into English. The languages are so dissimilar as to make that impossible. The closest an English translation can come to be "literal" is to translate as closely as possible Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek words, even though there are often no exact similarities. Of course, the verb tenses, idioms, etc. are often impossible to translate literally; it would be bizarre if you can dig my train of thought.

 

[Andrewn]

The NASB is a literal translation. There is no such thing. It is impossible to translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek literally into English. The languages are so dissimilar as to make that impossible.

While I agree with you, I can't find another word to express what I mean. The chart calls the category to the left "word-for-word." Other people call them "formal." Others call them "literal." You have to choose one of these 3 adjectives .

When I say "literal" I mean "relatively literal compared to others" not "absolutely literal."

 

[pescador]

While I agree with you, I can't find another word to express what I mean. The chart calls the category to the left "word-for-word." Other people call them "formal." Others call them "literal." You have to choose one of these 3 adjectives .

When I say "literal" I mean "relatively literal compared to others" not "absolutely literal."

I suppose, if I have to choose one out of the three, it would be "formal". The fact is that language is communicated through words and ideas, and includes tenses (some of which aren't used any more) and idioms (if you get my drift). There is no one-to-one correspondence between the ancient languages and the language that we speak and ready today.

I prefer "functional" translations that do the best in communicating, as closely as possible, the meaning of the text, along with explanatory footnotes (something King James had removed). The ancients lived, thought, and wrote completely differently than we do today -- two thousand years (minimum) later. When the ancient people heard and/or read the early texts they meant something entirely different to them than they do to us. That is why I much prefer translations that communicate the ideas and meanings of the ancient writings rather than clumsy (supposed) "word-for-word" translations.

The ancients wouldn't have the slightest clue what we are talking about when we use "normal" idiomatic language. It would go in one ear and out the other; they would be in a complete fog.

As a side note, it's raining cats and dogs here right now.

 

[Andrewn]

I suppose, if I have to choose one out of the three, it would be "formal".

Perhaps "formal" is better. But it implies that other translations are "informal." Slang?

The ancients lived, thought, and wrote completely differently than we do today -- two thousand years (minimum) later. When the ancient people heard and/or read the early texts they meant something entirely different to them than they do to us.

Even translation between 2 living languages is overwhelming and cannot be done word-for-word.

That is why I much prefer translations that communicate the ideas and meanings of the ancient writings rather than clumsy (supposed) "word-for-word" translations.

All translations need to communicate the ideas and meanings in the original. The question is how close to the style of the original does one wants to be and whether to keep ambiguities or give them your best explanation.

 

[hedrick]

Perhaps "formal" is better. But it implies that other translations are "informal." Slang?

Different meaning of "form." A formal equivalence translation is one that tries to show the form of the original as well is the meaning. I'm most familiar with the NRSV. While it's not always word for word, when you look at an interlinear you can see that there's a pretty direct correspondence between the original and the translation.

The main exception I note is the Gospels, where lots of sentences begin with "kai." ESV starts them with "and." NRSV does not. I find the ESV annoying. English doesn't work that way.

 

[prodromos]

As a side note, it's raining cats and dogs here right now.

Be careful you don't step in a poodle!

 

[Andrewn]

I prefer "functional" translations that do the best in communicating, as closely as possible, the meaning of the text, along with explanatory footnotes (something King James had removed).

The main exception I note is the Gospels, where lots of sentences begin with "kai." ESV starts them with "and." NRSV does not. I find the ESV annoying. English doesn't work that way.

ESV is not my favorite.

Translations like GNT, NIV and NLT are referred to as "thought-for-thought," "functional," "dynamic," or "idiomatic." Which description do you think is better?

 

[pescador]

ESV is not my favorite.

Translations like GNT, NIV and NLT are referred to as "thought-for-thought," "functional," "dynamic," or "idiomatic." Which description do you think is better?

All except the last one.

 

[pescador]

Different meaning of "form." A formal equivalence translation is one that tries to show the form of the original as well is the meaning. I'm most familiar with the NRSV. While it's not always word for word, when you look at an interlinear you can see that there's a pretty direct correspondence between the original and the translation.

The main exception I note is the Gospels, where lots of sentences begin with "kai." ESV starts them with "and." NRSV does not. I find the ESV annoying. English doesn't work that way.

An interlinear is not a reliable way to "translate" the Bible. Translation is much more difficult and complex than that. There is never a one-to-one word correspondence between the ancient languages and English. Idioms, for example, are very different, and I'm not speaking out of both sides of my mouth or blowing hot air.

A formal equivalence translation tries as much as possible to be word-for-word, while a functional equivalence translation tries as much as possible to be thought-for-thought. We live so differently than those people of biblical times -- thousands of years -- that a functional translation is much more real to our way of thinking than a formal translation.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Even if we do a word for word translation, could we miss something from the original Greek? For example, in John 21, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him three times and Peter responds, I love you. However, in the Greek, the first two times Jesus uses "agape" for love, and Peter responds with "philo". The third time, Jesus switches to "philo" and Peter responds in kind. Does this have significance? Did Jesus have to finally change his word for love to get the right answer from Peter? Or is it significant at all?

 

[pescador]

Even if we do a word for word translation, could we miss something from the original Greek? For example, in John 21, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him three times and Peter responds, I love you. However, in the Greek, the first two times Jesus uses "agape" for love, and Peter responds with "philo". The third time, Jesus switches to "philo" and Peter responds in kind. Does this have significance? Did Jesus have to finally change his word for love to get the right answer from Peter? Or is it significant at all?

Is there a significant difference in meaning between the two words for love used in the passage, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω (agapaō and phileō)? Aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that a distinction in meaning should be seen comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the 19th century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray. There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33). An examination of the uses of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16; 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35; 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:3, 5); of the love of men for men (13:34; 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42; 16:27). (2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although ἀγαπάω is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic). (3) Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ἀγαπάω are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb φιλέω. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering. Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.

I'm not sure why you cite these few verses to prove a point, which is..?

Anyway, I've answered your question. Perhaps you've never thought about this in the way competent translators have?