Our Sunday School series on the biblical canon did not allow sufficient time to discussion Bible translation. Here are answers to a few typical questions...
When was the Bible first translated into English?
The entire Bible was first translated into English by John Wycliffe (1330-1384), completing the project in 1382. He translated from the Latin Vulgate. However, this would have been Middle English—a mixture of Norman and English—which we may have found somewhat difficult to understand. Interestingly, in 1414 it became a capital offense to read the Bible in English. For this reason, in 1428, at the command of Pope Martin V, Wycliffe’s body was exhumed and burned!
William Tyndale was the first to translate the Bible into English directly from Hebrew and Greek. He completed the NT in 1526, publishing over 18,000 copies. At this time, owning an English copy of the Scriptures was still illegal. Tyndale was unable to finish translating the OT before he was kidnapped, strangled and burned at the stake in 1535. His last words were reportedly, “Lord, open the eyes of the king of England.” In 1537, Henry VIII legalized the English Bible.
Miles Coverdale, a disciple of Tyndale, completed the first full printed Bible in English in 1535.
Isn’t something always lost in translation? In other words, is my English translation really inspired?
You may remember from our first week of the canon series, inspiration technically applies only to the autographs. Article X of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy reads in part: “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” Because of the reliability of transmission, we have great confidence that we have a reliable witness to the inspired autographs in our extant manuscripts. To the extent that our translations faithfully communicate the meaning of those texts, we can say that we hold and read the Word of God. That is, we should read, memorize, and study our English Bibles with confidence.
All that being said, there are nuances of the original language texts more easily ascertained if one gains competence in Hebrew and Greek. No believer who devotes themselves to learning these languages for the purpose of studying the Bible will rue the years spent.
Which translation is most literal?
First, it’s helpful to note that there are two general translation philosophies. The first is dynamic or functional equivalence, which attempts to produce a “thought for thought” or “meaning for meaning” rendering of the original. Dynamic equivalent translations, while seeking to be accurate, prioritize rendering a text that is natural-sounding, easy to understand, and somewhat conversational in tone. Some dynamic equivalent translations would include the New Living Translation (NLT), the New International Version (NIV), and the Contemporary English Version (CEV).
The second translation philosophy is formal or literal equivalence, which attempts a “word for word” rendering of the original. Formal equivalent translations seek where possible to provide for each word of the original text an equivalent English word. This can result in comparatively less readable language, but which more closely mirrors the vocabularly, grammar, and syntax of the original text. Modern formal equivalents would include the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), and Lexham English Bible (LEB).
We could think of these philosophies as existing on a spectrum with some translations being on the end of extreme dynamic equivalence and others on the opposite end of extreme formal equivalence. The real difference between the two is, how much interpretation is influencing the translation? A dynamic equivalent requires more interpretation as the translators are seeking to convey meaning. A formal equivalent requires less interpretation as the translators are seeking—for the most part—to translate individual words. However, every translation requires some interpretation.
As it pertains to the question above, we should note that the term “literal” and the phrase “word for word,” ironically, should not be taken literally when it comes to bible translations. There is no such thing as a truly literal or word for word translation. Such a thing would be virtually impossible to accomplish. Even if one were to attempt it, the result would be nearly unreadable.
For example, here is my best attempt to translate Romans 1:16 as “word for word” as I can:
Not for I am ashamed the gospel power for of God is into salvation to all to the believing one to Jew and first also to Greek.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t see myself reading that devotionally. I’m thankful for translators who understand not just the vocabulary, but the grammar and syntax of Greek, so that they are able to render this as accurately as possible in readable English.
While a truly literal translation does not exist, one that purports to be one is Young’s Literal Translation (YLT). It is not literally literal. Yet, it’s hard enough to read that it feels literal!
If you want a good English translation that you can read and is perhaps the most formally equivalent, I find the New American Standard (NASB) to make the fewest interpretive choices. It’s a great option for one who wants to study the Bible in English.
For a great all-around Bible for devotional reading, meditation, and study, you can’t beat the ESV.
Are there any translations from which I should stay away?
Certainly, stay away from any translation devised by people with a theological agenda. For example, the New World Translation (NWT) comes from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is a cult. It shouldn’t be considered a Bible at all.
Another one I would avoid is “The New Testament for Everyone,” not only because it was translated by N.T. Wright, but more so because it was translated only by N.T. Wright. Translation committees are an excellent idea and any translation that comes from one person is not a great thing, in my view.
Legitimate translations, dynamic or formal, can be helpful as long as you know what you’re getting. I personally wouldn’t even condemn paraphrases (The Living Bible, The Message) as long as you think of it more like a commentary, not a Bible.
Why do we keep making new translations?
Several reasons. First, we keep finding new manuscripts. We want our translations to be based on the best, most accurate collection of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. This is a reason I personally do not find the KJV to be among the better options for an English translation today; it still relies on a collection of Greek manuscripts called the Textus Receptus. We have a much more robust collection of manuscripts today, allowing for more accurate translations.
Second, our understanding of the biblical languages and culture continues to improve over time. For example, the prevailing view of Greek verb tenses when I was in seminary just under 20 years ago is no longer valid due to very strong research in the field. There are no major theological ramifications, but tweaks need to be made in translations as a result.
Third, the English language changes over time. How we use words today is not how we used words twenty or thirty years ago. This is another reason I would not consider the KJV a strong option.
Why do so many people view the King James Version as the only legitimate translation?
This is such a huge issue, it can’t be adequetely addressed in a small section of one article. For an excellent and thorough discussion of the King James Version, see James White’s The King James Only Controversy.
Comments