Where did our Bible translations come from?

(A look at the history of English translations and textual issues designed to help readers choose the best Bible translation, by R. Samuel Braden, March 2020)

We have so many translations of the Bible in English, more in fact than any other language! Why is that? And how do we know which ones are accurate and which are not? Is it all a matter of preference, or are there really some translations that are better than others?

The best versions of the Bible are the original Hebrew and Greek. But most people do not understand these languages, and so translations are needed. Otherwise we’d end up like the Catholic church which tried to control access to the Bible by keeping it in a language the common people didn’t understand. Martin Luther revolutionized the church by translating the Bible and making it available to the common person. Today we take that for granted, but what we should not take for granted is the idea of accuracy. Every translation of the Bible is done by human beings who are imperfect and can make mistakes. You have to know if the source is trustworthy in order to know if the translation is any good.

Ask these questions:

1. Who made this translation of the Bible?
2. What method did they use? (Literal or dynamic equivalence)
3. What is the stated purpose of this translation?

These things will tell you a lot about it before you even begin to read it.

Think with me about someone who has learned sign language and can interpret for the deaf. This is not as easy as it may appear. A good interpreter will do much more than learn signs that go with spoken words. Because deaf people cannot hear, many of our idioms and other figures of speech make no sense to them: “It rings a bell” for example. A deaf person has never heard a bell, and thus has no reference for that figure of speech or why one would use it to describe something familiar. Therefore, the interpreter needs to listen to the speaker, determine what he means, and transfer it to signs and expressions that the deaf person will be able to relate to.

That is exactly the dilemma that is faced by Bible translators. What is the best way to take the meaning of the biblical text and put it in such a way that it can be understood by the new audience?

The answer to this question is not an easy one, and its difficulty is amplified because of the importance of the Word of God. How the translation is carried out can have eternal ramifications. To assist us in our understanding of Bible translation, let’s first look at the words themselves.

Words can have various translations

If you enjoy writing, you are intimately familiar with synonyms. For those of you who hated English class, synonyms are words that have basically the same meanings as other words. Without synonyms, sentences would lack color and diversity, and our language would be far duller to listen to. However, this poses a problem for translators. When several words can be used, which one should be chosen?

One example of this is the Greek word agape, which is one of three words in Greek that refer to various kinds of love. English, however, does not have such diversity in labeling love, and so it tends to use the same word, “love,” for all of them, and thus loses some of the original distinction. In I Corinthians 13, the famed “love chapter,” the King James translators decided to use the word “charity” instead of “love.” While in our modern day world “charity” generally carries more of a meaning like “an organization that helps people in need,” it really means the practical outpouring of love with no return to yourself. This is a faithful representation of the selfless love meant by the Greek word agape. However, due to changes in the use of the word “charity” over the past few hundred years, as noted above, those working on newer translations from Greek to English tend to just use “love” for all instances of agape and others.

Another word to consider is one that we have actually taken directly from the Greek: “angel.” This word appears in the Greek as angelos. Although this word simply means “messenger,” in our minds today we tend to picture a beautiful creature with heavenly white robes and wings. Thinking about that, when the messages in the first few chapters of the book of Revelation are given to the angelos of each church, are we talking about a heavenly being with a halo and wings that stood guard over every church? Or did this passage refer to a human messenger, such as the pastor? Older translations of the Bible into English kept the word angel in place. But to deal with confusion arising over the meaning of angel in recent decades, some modern translations use the English word “messenger” instead.

Furthermore, remember reading about Paul’s thorn in the flesh? Did that involve an angel? Specifically, the “angelos of Satan to buffet me” (2 Corinthians 12:7). Does that mean that a literal demon was tormenting Paul day and night? Or was it a physical ailment that the apostle was simply referring to as a messenger from the devil?

Finally, if we misunderstand the multiple meanings of some words,” then John the Baptist should also be among the angels. After all, God said about him that “I send my angelos before your face . . .” (Mark 1:2). In both II Corinthians and Mark 1, all major versions interpret angelos as “messenger.” It is obvious, then, that individual words can be translated differently, depending on the interpretation of the translator.

Since we now know that words take special care when translating from one language into another, we need to tackle the bigger question. Can whole ideas be accurately transferred between languages? This leads us to the second main factor in determining which translation we should use—the translation method employed by the translators.

Difference in translation methods

If we set out to determine which is the most accurate Bible version available, we first have to define the term “accurate.” Are we looking for the version that best represents the wording of the original, or the one that most accurately represents the message of the original? All translators have to answer this question as they embark on their work. The answer will determine which method of translation will be used.

A translator is charged with a very difficult job—helping people of one language understand what was written in another. Essentially, he stands between them as the mediator. The message has to go through him to reach the reader.

The method the translator uses to do this will have a critical impact on the final translation. The methods of translation are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Let’s take a quick look at each of these to see how they cause variety in translation.

Formal equivalence

Using the method of formal equivalence, translators attempt to reproduce the original language in as close to a word-for-word manner as is possible. The positive side of this approach is that it results in a text that is the most faithful to the original. It stresses the importance of the words of the Bible rather than simply the ideas, which is important if we accept the verbal inspiration of God. While the outcome is a text that can be sometimes difficult to understand in the new language, the reader can be assured that the reading is closely aligned with the original.

Now it is not possible to keep the exact wording 100% like the original without changing any of it. See for example John 3:16

Original:

ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον  μονογενη  εδωκεν ινα πας ο

πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον

Exact Translation:

Thus indeed loved God the cosmos that the Son, the only begotten, He gave that everyone, believing in Him, not should perish but might have life eternal.

So as you can see, the exact literal wording from the original language is rather clunky to keep in English and makes it sound like Yoda is talking. Even the most literal translations still have to reword things in order for the text to make sense or flow better. But they do strive to stay as close as possible to the original.

Another thing to consider is that quite often words will have to be added to make the passage flow correctly in the target language. In the King James Version, many of these additional words are indicated by the use of italics. See for example:

Psalm 22:1 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?”

The original Hebrew, leaving out the added English words, simply says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Far from helping me, the words of my roaring.” Now this raises the question, were those new English words actually true to the original? Was the psalmist actually asking why God was far from helping him? Or was he originally admitting that the words of his roaring were the things that were not helping him? The translators had to make the decision as to what would make the most sense in English, and so they added the words. But thankfully with this form of translation, such decisions are minimal compared to the next one we will look at. So in summary:

Positives of formal equivalence:

• Faithful to the original text
• Recognizes verbal inspiration of God
• Less dependence on the interpretation of the translator, it lays that burden on the shoulders of the reader to “rightly divide the word of truth”

Negatives of formal equivalence:

• Can sometimes be difficult to understand in the new language
• Idioms and figures of speech may not make as much sense
• Strict formal equivalence is impossible, and some new words have to be added or rephrased

Popular Bible versions that use formal equivalence:

• King James Version (KJV)
• New King James Version (NKJV)
• New American Standard Bible (NASB)
• English Standard Version (ESV) – “essentially literal” with a taste of dynamic equivalence
• Revised Standard Version (RSV) –“essentially literal” with a taste of dynamic equivalence

Dynamic equivalence

The second method of translation is dynamic equivalence (aka functional equivalence). With this method, the translator considers the meaning behind the original text and attempts to convey it to the reader of the target language. The goal is to produce the same effect on the modern readers that the original readers experienced. The disadvantage of this method is that, in order to get the meaning across, the words of original Scripture must be changed much more than with formal equivalence. On the positive side, it makes for a much more readable text. With dynamic equivalence, the burden of interpretation of the original text is on the translator.

An example of dynamic equivalence can be found in Romans 7:18. The KJV, using formal equivalence, reads, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing…” The NIV, utilizing dynamic equivalence, records the same passage as “For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.” The Greek word (sarx) translated as “flesh” and “sinful nature” in these respective versions literally means “body.” But here is the question: Are we sinners because we have a sinful nature that hangs with us throughout life, or are we sinners because we are living in a sin-cursed physical body? Using dynamic equivalence, the NIV translators (whether correct or not) are able to interject their opinion into the text. Thus, if the translators are being faithful to the original, then the result is an easy-to-understand translation that is also true. But if they have alterior motives, then the danger is that they could manipulate the translation to mean things other than what God originally intended. The versions that translate this verse literally (KJV, NKJV, NASB) simply translate the word as “flesh” and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusions through personal study. The versions that translate it dynamically, however, make that decision for the readers and just leave them to read what they think was originally meant.

The result of this method of translation is that Scripture is easy to read and sounds natural in our language, as if it were actually written in English to begin with. Consider for example 1 Corinthians 12:8, which reads like this in the dynamic equivalence of the NIV:

Some Gadites defected to David at his stronghold in the wilderness. They were brave warriors, ready for battle and able to handle the shield and spear. Their faces were the faces of lions, and they were as swift as gazelles in the mountains.

Compare that to the formal equivalence of the KJV:

And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David into the hold to the wilderness men of might, and men of war fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler, whose faces were like the faces of lions, and were as swift as the roes upon the mountains;

Thus we can see that the dynamic equivalence makes the passage smooth and easy to read in English, while apparently staying true to the original. But again, it all comes down to the trustworthiness of the translators and how consistent they are when handling the original text. Dynamic equivalence translations risk leaving details out or changing the message if the person doing the work does not understand the importance of why something was said the specific way it was said originally. I leave you with one example of this before we move on. Consider Ephesians 4:26, which reads as follows in the KJV:

Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath

And for comparison, it reads like this in the NIV:

In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry

Can you spot the difference there? In the KJV it seems to be giving the reader a command to be angry, and a challenge to avoid sin while doing so. But in the NIV, the phrasing is changed so it is not a command, but simply a warning to stay away from sin whenever you happen to be angry. So which should it be? Well, the Greek verb translated “anger” or “be angry” is Orgizesthe and is in the Aorist tense and is an imperative. It is in fact a command. Paul is clearly stating that anger is sometimes necessary, yet to be done in purity without sin. The dynamic equivalent translators, attempting to sidestep the issue about when anger is appropriate and when it is not, dropped the imperative completely and changed the passage to mean that whenever anger is present you should just be careful to avoid sin. They made the decision to change the words, and so an important part of the original meaning was lost.

So in summary, dynamic equivalence tries to make the Bible sound natural in our language. But it does so at the cost of the precise original wording, and sometimes that means that an important part of the original text is changed or lost completely. Here’s the rundown:

Positives of Dynamic Equivalence:

• Easier to understand (more readable)
• Less interpretation by the reader (because it’s mostly done by the translator)
• The use of modern English words and expressions makes the Bible feel more “alive”

Negatives of Dynamic Equivalence:

• Less faithful to the original
• More dependent on the interpretation of the translator
• Tends to alter or omit original text that doesn’t fit with how the translator sees it

Popular Bible versions that use dynamic equivalence:

• New International Version (NIV)
• New Living Translation (NLT)
• The Message Bible (TMB)

Manuscripts:

Now let’s consider one final thing: the manuscripts used in translation. Here’s where the rubber really meets the road and highlights differences among translations using the same translating method. For simplicity’s sake, we’re going to stick with a comparison of just those using the Formal Equivalence method. Up until now it has been clear that these translations are all in a different set from those using Dynamic Equivalence. But are they also different from each other? The short answer is yes, but to understand more let’s look at where these translations get their text to translate.

The first thing we have to realize is that, just like the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, the original manuscripts hand-written by the Apostles and Prophets of old are long gone. All that remain today are copies made long after the originals were first penned. There exist approximately 5,686 bits and pieces of Greek New Testament manuscripts in various forms dating back to the early 2^nd century. Some manuscripts contain a few verses, some a few chapters and occasionally a complete New Testament book such as Galatians. The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, called the “Rylands Library Papyrus P52,” which has been dated to somewhere between A.D. 100 – 150. Now this fact is pretty impressive. It means we have solid evidence that the Gospel is not a modern hoax, but is in fact at least 1,900 years old! However, that copy is still not from the time Jesus walked the earth. And in fact, John and all the other Apostles would have been dead by the time this copy was made.

For an example closer to home, imagine you made a copy of President Theodore Roosevelt’s inaugural address, which he made in March of 1905. We tend to think of that as somewhat recent history. But it’s still 115 years ago! Now imagine future archaeologists are trying to find evidence that Theodore Roosevelt was a real person and whether he actually said the things attributed to him. And the oldest document they can find is the copy of his speech you made today. You knew when you made the copy that it was accurate, but future archaeologists don’t know anything of the kind. They are searching for evidence, and your copy is the oldest thing that has survived to their time. That’s kind of the situation with original language copies of the Bible. The original documents are long gone, and so we have to make do with copies. Now the burden falls on the translators to make sure the copies they are using are legit and accurate. To do that, scholars have compiled two main sets of manuscripts that contain the complete Bible: The “Textus Receptus” and the “Critical Text” (Wescott & Hort).

The Textus Receptus

Also known as the “received text,” (TR for short) this collection of manuscripts was compiled by a Greek fellow by the name Erasmus, beginning in 1516 and continuing through the rest of the century. He worked hard to bring together many disparate copies of the various books of the New Testament and compile one, uniform text from beginning to end.

The first printed English translation of the whole Bible was produced by Miles Coverdale in 1535, using William Tyndale’s work together with his own translations from the TR. Other early printed versions were the Geneva Bible of 1560, notable for being the first Bible divided into verses; the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, which was an attempt by Elizabeth I to create a new authorized version; and the Authorized King James Version of 1611. These would have been the “Big Four” English translations at the time of the Pilgrims in 1620. And for a while, they were enough. The problem is, the English language changes over time, quite a lot in fact. And it wasn’t long before updates to the translations were called for.

In 1769, more than 150 years after first being translated, the King James version was updated to the version that is widely used today. Due to significant changes in English spelling and grammar, and more work being done in compiling standardized Greek manuscripts, the Bible scholars of Oxford University, led by Benjamin Blayney, produced the updated translation. Today, every King James Bible has the 1769 date stamped on the copyright page. In fact, very few Americans have ever even seen an original 1611 version, and if they had they would not understand it, so great are the changes to our language in 400 years’ time.

In 1982 another update to the King James version was published, called the “New King James version.” This update did the same thing the 1769 update did, and worked to modernize spelling and phrasing to better suit a 20^th century American audience. Strangely, this update was not as well received as the previous one had been. And to this day there are people who claim the superiority of the 1769 translation, denying the 1982 translation as “misguided.”

Meanwhile, other translations had cropped up during the intervening years. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is an English translation of the Bible published in the mid-20th century. It traces its history to William Tyndale’s New Testament translation of 1525 and is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. The RSV New Testament was first published on February 11, 1946. In his presentation speech, Luther Weigle, dean of the translation committee, explained that he wanted the RSV to supplement, but not supplant the KJV. Later, in 1952, the Old Testament was finished as well. The translation panel used the 17th edition of the Nestle-Åland Greek text (which includes much of the TR, but also other manuscripts) for the New Testament and the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. In the Book of Isaiah, they sometimes followed readings from the newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls. The translators mostly kept to the traditional “formal equivalence” method of translating, but in some places they also made some use of the new “dynamic equivalence” method to make the text more readable in modern English. Thus, this translation is a bit of a hybrid between the two translation methods. This fact, combined with some controversy over their rendering of “virgin” as “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14, led to significant backlash from conservatives in Baptist churches and helped ignite the modern “King James Only” movement. One pastor even publicly burned his copy of the RSV in protest.

In 2001, the ESV was published as an update to the RSV, and is currently enjoying wide popularity among American evangelical churches, particularly in western states.

Critical Text (Wescott and Hort)

In 1881, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort published a new compilation of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. These included the oldest manuscripts yet discovered: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Since their day, a good number of other manuscripts as old and in some cases over a century older than these two manuscripts have been discovered. But they mostly tend to agree with each other, demonstrating yet again that God’s promise to not let His word be lost is still true.

The significance of these manuscripts is that they are far older than the ones used by Erasmus in his compilation of the Greek New Testament in the 1500s. Not only that, but they contain some verses that Erasmus lacked entirely. For example, When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. From there he translated that Greek into English. So the TR translation of the ending of Revelation is based on a double-translation from Latin to Greek and then to English. In the 500 years since Erasmus began his work, many additional manuscripts have been found, and the ability of scholars to put together a complete Greek New Testament has grown.

From the early versions, the Critical Text has strong support in the various Egyptian Coptic versions of the 3^rd and century, plus frequent support in the Old Latin versions and the oldest forms of the Syriac. Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin, the Vulgate made before 400 A.D., also gives frequent support to this text. Of early Christian writers before the 4^th century, this text has substantial support, especially in the writings of Origen, whose Scripture quotations are exceedingly numerous. All of that is just to say that the Critical Text is very old and well-supported.

Arguments over the manuscripts used, however, still occur. The biggest of these contentions is the dispute that the Critical Text, namely the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, leave out certain passages. Most famously is John 7:53-8:11, which those manuscripts omit, but is included in newer ones. The argument goes, if the passage is not present in the oldest manuscripts, then someone must have added it in the newer ones. On the other hand, since the passage is included in the majority of manuscripts, then how is it reasonable to say that just because 2 manuscripts don’t have it, we should drop it entirely?

Wescott and Hort were not infallible. Despite their attempt to provide a better and older compilation of the Greek manuscripts, the defects of their text are also generally recognized, particularly its excessive reliance on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Hort declared the combined testimony of these two manuscripts to be all but a guarantee that a reading was original. Many scholars today recognize this as being an extreme and unwarranted point of view. Those two manuscripts show the same kinds of scribal errors found in all the rest, a fact to be recognized and such singular readings to be rejected.

Taking these findings into account, in 1963 (and updated in 1995) scholars from the Lockman Foundation published the New American Standard Bible as an alternative to the RSV, which is considered by some to be theologically liberal and, as noted above, was initially opposed by conservative Baptists. The New American Standard Bible was designed to be one of the most literally translated English versions of all time. Following the Formal Equivalence method as closely as possible, and using the wealth of manuscripts discovered since the 1500s, the scholars put together a translation whose greatest strength is its reliability and fidelity to the original languages. And where textual issues did crop up, they were always noted in footnotes so that the reader could study more. As with the disputed passage in John 7:53-8:11, the translators of the NASB placed the verses in brackets to show the reader that the text was in question. Thus the reader was encouraged to research further and not blindly take the translator’s word for anything. This emphasis on following the example of the Bereans and doing one’s own research places the NASB as one of the most openly honest translations ever made, not hiding anything behind traditions or overly condescending “I’ll do the work for you” dynamic equivalencies.

In Conclusion:

So what shall we say then about all this? Is there a perfect English translation? No. What we have today is a selection of translations made by people who tried their best to provide English speakers with a way to access God’s word. Mistakes have been made by even the best-intentioned of them. But we must not lose faith. We must come to God, remembering as Hebrews 11:6 tells us, that “He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”

It is also true that some translations are, in fact, better than others. Formal Equivalence, in this author’s opinion, is a superior translation method to dynamic equivalence because it keeps the original wording and does not allow as much room for the translators to insert their opinions. Furthermore, translations that make use of more manuscripts and cross-check against inconsistencies have a much lower risk of getting things wrong. And finally, translations that use words the reader can understand rather than slavishly sticking to words no longer used make the Bible more accessible, which is exactly what God intended.

This author humbly submits that the NASB and the NKJV are the two best translations of the Bible into English. They are easily readable and as accurate as is humanly possible. But whether you agree with this or not, this author would urge you to at least stay away from the paraphrase versions, the fluff out there that does not translate so much as it re-writes. Things like the NLT, TMB, the Good News Bible, and others are almost as devoid of meat as the 7-11 songs that plague modern so-called “worship” songs in churches everywhere. Look for the more literal translations, for therein lies the heart of God. And if another brother uses a different translation, don’t let yourself deride or hate him. If it’s a good, literal translation it may be just as good as your favorite or better. And if it’s not, just remember that a kind word spoken in love goes a lot farther than a judgmental one spoken in hatred or condescension, for those will only drive him to reject whatever you say.