How the Bible Came to UsRecent Translations of the English

Bible

Text Types for Different English Versions

Autographs

Western Caesarean Alexandrian

Latin – 150 ADWest Med

Coptic – 200 ADEgypt

Syriac – c. 150 ADSyria

Byzantine

KJV (1611) ERV (1885) ASV (1901)

Douai (1610)

RSV (1952)NASB (1971)ESV (2001)NKJV (1982)

NIV (1978)NET (2005)

Introductory Remarks• We looked in an earlier lesson at

successors of the KJV: – ERV (1885)– ASV (1901)– RSV (1952)– NASB (1971)– NKJV (1982)

• In this lesson we want to look at other English translations since 1950. (See Wegner for a more complete listing).

The Living Bible (1971)• History

– Kenneth Taylor first realized the need for a new translation as a speaker for InterVarsity in America and Canada.

– He later had 10 children of his own and saw firsthand their difficulty in understanding the KJV.

– The translation was so well received that he started Tyndale House to promote and publish his work.

• Policies of the Translator– Taylor’s goal was to paraphrase, in his own words, the ASV of

1901. He did not work from the original languages.– A revision was done in 1996 (New Living Translation) which was

based directly on the original languages, and employed dynamic equivalence translation rather than paraphrase.

• Translation– Its strength is clear and easy to understand language. Yet it often

goes way beyond the actual text with explanatory comment.• Evaluation

– While this paraphrase has aroused broad interest in reading the Bible, it frequently sacrifices accuracy in the process of making the Bible understandable.

Good News Bible (1976)• History

– By 1976 the NT edition of this translation had already sold fifty-two million copies.

• Policies of the Translator– The goal was to achieve an accurate, understandable

translation of the original texts.– Not a paraphrase, but uses dynamic equivalence rather than

a more literal method of translation.– Generally an elementary-school reading level.

• Translation– Goal: “to give today’s readers maximum understanding from

the content of the original texts.”– Produced with great care and with fewer mistakes than TLB.

• Evaluation– Attempts to simplify translation from the original texts without

adding additional words like TLB.

New International Version (1978)• History

– Arose from dissatisfaction among evangelicals with existing translations.

– Backed by the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals.

– Produced by more than 110 evangelical translators from many English-speaking countries and about thirty-four denominations; used English that is internationally recognized.

• Policies of the Translator– Attempted to bridge the gap between word-for-word and dynamic-

equivalence translations.– Sought accuracy and clarity as well as a degree of formality.

• Translation– Removes many Hebrew idioms such as “and it came to pass.”– Does not use archaic forms of second person pronouns because

they are no longer contemporary English.– Contains more than 3350 footnotes with textual variations, other

translations, cross-references, and explanatory notes.• Evaluation

– It has been well received and acclaimed as the top-selling Bible version in 1999. One of the most popular versions today.

The Message (2002)• History

– Attempts for the 1990s what the Living Bible did for the 1970s; it is a fresh rendering from the original languages.

– While serving as a pastor for 29 years in Maryland, Peterson began translating the Scripture into the idiom of today’s generation.

• Policies of the Translator– A paraphrase translation whose aim is “to convert the tone,

the rhythm, the events, the ideas, into the way we actually think and speak.”

• Translation– The argument is made that just as the NT was written in the

common, informal Greek of the day, so should an English translation be.

• Evaluation– Though it was ranked sixth among best-selling Bible

versions of 1999, this version should not be depended upon for serious Bible study.

The English Standard Version (2001)

• History– A revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard

Version. About 6-7% of the text was changed from the RSV.– Underwent a minor revision in 2007, which the publisher

chose not to identify as a revision.• Policies of the Translator

– Based on the original languages and the latest editions of BHS (OT) and UBS and Nestle/Aland (NT).

• Translation– Employs formal equivalence (more literal) rather than

dynamic equivalence, though there are exceptions in some passages.

• Evaluation– A good, mostly literal translation, and preferred by many as

more literary and readable in style.

The New English Translation aka The NET Bible (2005)

• History– A completely new translation, not an update of an earlier

translation.– Produced by twenty biblical scholars working from the

original languages.• Policies of the Translator

– “commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry.”

– Since it is not limited by a print edition, it includes an immense number of study notes...16,025 in the NT alone.

• Translation– The text is dynamically equivalent for readability, with the

notes often providing a more literal rendering.– The NET Bible is also available in Chinese.

• Evaluation– An innovative approach that takes advantage of the power of

the internet and employs extensive, scholarly study notes.

Reading Ability Scale• This scale gives an idea of the reading

level necessary for different translations.– NLT – 6.3– KJV – 12.0– NASB – 10.0– TLB – 8.3– NIV – 7.3

Next Time:

How to Choose a Bible Version