I stand by my position that "The argument over which translation is "better" often comes down to personal preference. No translation is perfect (except for the KJV 1611)". I think that all translations have their weaknesses. My quote above though was lovingly ripped out of context by Nick Norelli, and it caused confusion for one of his readers (see the comments there). I didn't intend to imply that there were no quality differences between translations. There definitely are. However, the order or ranking that we give to our favored translations is often governed more by preference than by the quality of the translation.
For example, TC Robinson explained today why he no longer prefers the NASB95. (TC, I'm glad you agree that "there's no perfect translation.") The same qualities that led him to reject the NASB95 could be why someone else likes it. The opposing gender translation policies of the HCSB and the TNIV cause many people to accept or reject either translation based on their view of gender-issues. Personally, I'm in favor of letting the text stand on its own without imposing any ideology on the translation itself. (Of course, with a patriarchal text like the Bible I'm in the same camp with the HCSB policy by default for gender issues which automatically aligns me with a misogynistic ideology, at least in the minds of those who favor the gender-sensitive approach of the TNIV. Just remember that having a conservative position on how the Bible should be translated doesn't necessarily mean that the people involved are misogynists. I don't happen to think that leaving the gender of the language alone is a form of doctrinal bias.)
People pick their favorite translation for a variety of reasons. Most of them have nothing to do with the accuracy of the translation because most people don't have the training to evaluate that. My generation grew up on the NIV. It came to dominate the Bible market in American evangelical churches for reasons that are a bit unclear to me. I guess at the time the choices were limited and the NIV was most readable. There's nothing particularly excellent about the quality of the NIV to make it the favorite of most people. It's decent, but it messed up a lot. The TNIV fixed that (but it's far from perfect, too). The next likely candidate for most popular translation is probably the KJV. It's a classic. A few people have gone off the deep end with their devotion to it, but it's main weakness is the manuscripts issue. Once you get past the archaic English, that is. I've heard of rare cases where someone has become singularly attached to the first edition of the NLT.
So, I thought I'd give my ranking of the English Bible Versions. It doesn't include all of them, only ones that I'm reasonably familiar with. The ranking is most to least favorite. Keep in mind my personal preferences. I read the languages, so I like literal. I speak Biblish, so I don't mind biblical idioms and theological jargon. Transparency to the original is more important than literary quality for me.
1. English Standard Version (ESV) - readable and accurate
2. New American Standard Bible (NASB) - accurate
3. New Living Translation (NLT) - readable
4. King James Version (KJV) - classic
5. Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - readable, fairly accurate
6. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
7. New English Translation (NET)
8. Jewish Publication Society (JPS) - for the Tanak, refreshingly different at times
9. New International Version (NIV)
10. New King James Version (NKJV)
The ones that didn't make the list have particular qualities that bug me. Those same qualities might make you love those versions. I don't like the Contemporary English Version (CEV) because it was targeted at a 4th grade reading level as a kids' Bible. The test group of parents who looked it over loved it and wanted one for themselves. The publisher repackaged it, gave it a new name, and sold it to adults who should be reading a bit past the 4th grade level. I have reservations about the approach to gender language in Today's New International Version (TNIV). I admit the translation is better than the NIV, but I can't help but wonder how far we should go in translating the Bible so as not to offend. The Message was a good paraphrase, but I can't stand paraphrases.
Again, no translation is perfect. This is my top ten list. For other views and regularly lively discussions about Bible translations, there's a lot going on at the blogs by TC Robinson, ElShaddai Edwards, Rick Mansfield, and Scripture Zealot. I think they should all just get together and make their own translation, but they seem to like just constantly consulting 4 or 5 of them. I'm beginning to lean toward the "everyone needs to learn the biblical languages position" favored by my friends Calvin and John. I use Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia more than I use any English translation - except for the ESV on Sundays.
There you have it. An authoritative ranking of bible versions according to quality. Completely objective and based entirely on how close all the translations are to the original autographs. Enjoy.
For example, TC Robinson explained today why he no longer prefers the NASB95. (TC, I'm glad you agree that "there's no perfect translation.") The same qualities that led him to reject the NASB95 could be why someone else likes it. The opposing gender translation policies of the HCSB and the TNIV cause many people to accept or reject either translation based on their view of gender-issues. Personally, I'm in favor of letting the text stand on its own without imposing any ideology on the translation itself. (Of course, with a patriarchal text like the Bible I'm in the same camp with the HCSB policy by default for gender issues which automatically aligns me with a misogynistic ideology, at least in the minds of those who favor the gender-sensitive approach of the TNIV. Just remember that having a conservative position on how the Bible should be translated doesn't necessarily mean that the people involved are misogynists. I don't happen to think that leaving the gender of the language alone is a form of doctrinal bias.)
People pick their favorite translation for a variety of reasons. Most of them have nothing to do with the accuracy of the translation because most people don't have the training to evaluate that. My generation grew up on the NIV. It came to dominate the Bible market in American evangelical churches for reasons that are a bit unclear to me. I guess at the time the choices were limited and the NIV was most readable. There's nothing particularly excellent about the quality of the NIV to make it the favorite of most people. It's decent, but it messed up a lot. The TNIV fixed that (but it's far from perfect, too). The next likely candidate for most popular translation is probably the KJV. It's a classic. A few people have gone off the deep end with their devotion to it, but it's main weakness is the manuscripts issue. Once you get past the archaic English, that is. I've heard of rare cases where someone has become singularly attached to the first edition of the NLT.
So, I thought I'd give my ranking of the English Bible Versions. It doesn't include all of them, only ones that I'm reasonably familiar with. The ranking is most to least favorite. Keep in mind my personal preferences. I read the languages, so I like literal. I speak Biblish, so I don't mind biblical idioms and theological jargon. Transparency to the original is more important than literary quality for me.
1. English Standard Version (ESV) - readable and accurate
2. New American Standard Bible (NASB) - accurate
3. New Living Translation (NLT) - readable
4. King James Version (KJV) - classic
5. Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - readable, fairly accurate
6. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
7. New English Translation (NET)
8. Jewish Publication Society (JPS) - for the Tanak, refreshingly different at times
9. New International Version (NIV)
10. New King James Version (NKJV)
The ones that didn't make the list have particular qualities that bug me. Those same qualities might make you love those versions. I don't like the Contemporary English Version (CEV) because it was targeted at a 4th grade reading level as a kids' Bible. The test group of parents who looked it over loved it and wanted one for themselves. The publisher repackaged it, gave it a new name, and sold it to adults who should be reading a bit past the 4th grade level. I have reservations about the approach to gender language in Today's New International Version (TNIV). I admit the translation is better than the NIV, but I can't help but wonder how far we should go in translating the Bible so as not to offend. The Message was a good paraphrase, but I can't stand paraphrases.
Again, no translation is perfect. This is my top ten list. For other views and regularly lively discussions about Bible translations, there's a lot going on at the blogs by TC Robinson, ElShaddai Edwards, Rick Mansfield, and Scripture Zealot. I think they should all just get together and make their own translation, but they seem to like just constantly consulting 4 or 5 of them. I'm beginning to lean toward the "everyone needs to learn the biblical languages position" favored by my friends Calvin and John. I use Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia more than I use any English translation - except for the ESV on Sundays.
There you have it. An authoritative ranking of bible versions according to quality. Completely objective and based entirely on how close all the translations are to the original autographs. Enjoy.
Doug thanks for the link. The NASB95 is fine is some places, but it became to awkward after a while. I surprise that you have it at #2.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by read and accurate and then readable but no mention of accurate. For example, you have the NLT at #3 as readable, but at #5 you have the HCSB as both readable and fairly accurate.
The TNIV is an improvement of the NIV, but it didn't make you top ten.
In my opinion, the NRSV is a better bible than the ESV.
Thank you for framing your discussion with what your translation "preferences" are - too often these ranking posts appear without that context. I happen to disagree with some of your preferences, but my list still has a fair bit of overlap.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, can you comment more on how you view the approach to gender language differently in the TNIV than in the NLT or NRSV, both which appear on your list? I'm not a TNIV apologist, but I've seen the apparent incongruity before from multiple sources and I've always been curious what the difference is...
TC: that's why your list would look different from my list. I think NLTse is fairly accurate as far as dynamic-equivalent translations go. As far as NASB95 being second, remember my preferences - literal before literary. I agree that the TNIV is an improvement over the NIV. Right now, I'm trying to sort out the gender-neutral language controversy that keeps me from recommending it.
ReplyDeleteEl: I posted about the TNIV a couple of times in August and discussed the gender issue. I might not have explicitly explained how the NRSV and NLT are different though. I view both of them as being mainly inclusive in approach and the NRSV does the job better. I see the TNIV as bending the translation to conform with modern sensibilities about gender issues. We can't translate this patriarchal ancient text that way, women might be offended. I'm confused by that approach. Where do you stop when you're trying to make the Bible less offensive? Should we make it say less about sin? That could offend people, too.
I see the TNIV as bending the translation to conform with modern sensibilities about gender issues.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I could see that argument - clearly the NLTse and NRSV represent more thorough revisions of their predecessors than just bending the texts (as the ESV did to the RSV, and the TNIV to the NIV). I'll look for your posts on the TNIV...
El: Thanks for recognizing the way that I framed the discussion in your first comment. TC's linked to this post (New Leaven) and I'm not sure all who are discussing there fully appreciate the framing. As of right now, my comments there are still awaiting moderation.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your second paragraph. It articulates two opinions that I have much better than I could have said it.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way as you about the HCSB gender policy but am kind of afraid to say it because of how elevated the gender issue has become. Although I understand the general stance of gender inclusivity where merited and don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't let that keep me from using the HCSB as a main translation.
Jeff
I'm not quite sure of your intent here:
ReplyDeleteFor other views and regularly lively discussions about Bible translations, there's a lot going on at the blogs by TC Robinson, ElShaddai Edwards, Rick Mansfield, and Scripture Zealot. I think they should all just get together and make their own translation, but they seem to like just constantly consulting 4 or 5 of them. I'm beginning to lean toward the "everyone needs to learn the biblical languages position" favored by my friends Calvin and John.
Do you mean it's not a good idea to consult as many as 4 or 5 translations? I'm not sure if this is criticism or being poked fun at. (I always take the latter as a sign of affection.)
Starting a few weeks/months ago I for the most part stopped writing any posts of mine that are critical in a negative way of translations. I just point out positives or do some comparisons to point out how one may bring out the meaning. Although I have been critical of some of ESV's archaic word choices from time to time.
Thanks.
Jeff
Uhm, Douglas, have you ever heard about a little translation called the Message?! Sheesh. Talk about an accurate translation.
ReplyDelete"And ye, Jesus was all like, 'What's up, Apostles?' and lo, the Apostles were all like, 'Psssh, just taking a nap...chillax, man, seriously.'"
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteActually consulting several translations that cover the spectrum of translation philosophy is great way to study the Bible if reading the original language is not an option. And I realize that it is not an option for a lot of people for many reasons.
As for my intent, I was poking fun and wanted to let people know about those 4 blogs that were relatively new to me and I've found all the various discussions of bible translation very lively and interesting. I hesitated posting on the subject and drawing the attention of such a passionate group of bloggers.
Josh, I mentioned The Message at the end of the post when I said that "I can't stand paraphrases." You've done a good job at illustrating why.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying.
ReplyDeleteI hesitated posting on the subject and drawing the attention of such a passionate group of bloggers.
No problem from me.
I like your premise.
I'm trying my best. In going through Greek for the Rest of Us at least I'm learning some basic aspects of the Greek language even if I don't go on to really learn it. Not to mention Hebrew. It certainly makes me less critical of most translations and shows me even more how unqualified I am to evaluate them from a critical standpoint.
Right now I'm trying to learn if the HCSB is good for "serious study" as in phrasing/diagramming etc.
Jeff
Doug, thanks for some clarification and sorry about some of my typos.
ReplyDeleteTC: that's why your list would look different from my list. I think NLTse is fairly accurate as far as dynamic-equivalent translations go. As far as NASB95 being second, remember my preferences - literal before literary. I agree that the TNIV is an improvement over the NIV. Right now, I'm trying to sort out the gender-neutral language controversy that keeps me from recommending it.
I respect your list, and yes, it would not be mine (haha).
But if you're going to include the NLT and the NRSV but not the TNIV, then you confuse a guy like me. On the same basis the you excluded the TNIV, you should have done the same for the NRSV and the NLT. But it's not my list.
TC,
ReplyDeleteI'll try to find some time in the near future to examine my position on the TNIV vis-a-vis the NLT and NRSV. I want to be consistent and objective in my evaluation, so I need to make sure that I'm not overlooking something or arguing a straw man in my disapproval of the TNIV. I'll let you know what I find out.
You godless heathen! It is obvious that the True Ranking of Bible Versions is as follows:
ReplyDelete1) Reina-Valera 1960
2) Reina-Valera 1909
3) Reina 1569
4) Valera 1602
5) Original AV 1611 (NOT the Cambridge 1769!)
And that's it. Now, THAT is "completely objective and based entirely on how close all the translations are to the original autographs"! Oh, but I do agree about the CEV. I started writing a post about its Spanish equivalent several months ago; maybe I'll dig it out and see if it's worth finishing and posting.