Q&A: Bible Translation
Here’s a note via the contact form, and since it does not contain an email address I can’t respond to it (if you send a message via the contact form, be sure to include an email address if you’re asking for a reply).
I did the research myself, and beleive the TR is likely the best Greek text. I have struggled with some of the arahic words, but the more one uses the KJV, the easier it gets. I know about the Majority Text position, but I cannot think God would sort of hide the best manuscripits for over 2,000 years.
May I ask what are your thoughts on the NKJV? I don’t mind the NKJV, but there is something about it I cannot point to but it doesn’t always flow the best. I actually think the NASB is a smoother translation, but off the wrong Greek text.
My last question on this issue is this. You mention the 1967 Scofield Bible, do you use that one? Do you like it? I found some on Ebay, and was wondering if it is better than the 2003 Scofield reissue which I use. Have you heard of the The Subject Bible? The KJV Store has it and it has the arachiac words defined which is good.
I’ll use NKJV for normal teaching, but since Nelson requires royalty payments to use the NKJV text (look in the front of your Bible and you’ll find the rules), in books and the web site I use KJV. After changing the spelling from British-> English and a few other changes (similar to the 1967 Scofield), you’ll find that’s the text which generally appears on the site and in my books.
Many “KJV-Only” people reject the NKJV (as well as the 1967 Scofield), but my position remains the same: a good-quality translation from the Textus Receptus base will always be acceptable. The NKJV isn’t perfect, but it’s solid. Personally, I find the NASB a bit too “wordy” to be used (a subjective idea to be sure), but since it follows Westcott-Hort/Alexandrian base and we have the NKJV from Textus Receptus, I’d prefer NKJV over NASB.
However, many people I highly respect use the NASB, and if you compare it to other “modern” translations, you’ll notice it follows Alexandrian base a little less than the others.
My primary Bible remains a 1967 Scofield KJV, and has been for 30 years or so (I have a well-worn first printing, and purchased a new one when they decided to re-issue it a few years ago. I thought it was still in print, but perhaps not). I prefer it over the newer Scofield releases as it replaces the archaic KJV words in the text, while making a note in the side notes. Thus, when reading it flows easily.
Example: 1 Thessolonians 4:15
KJV: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1967 Scofield: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not |precede|gg them which are asleep. (in the side notes: ggKJV: prevent)
On the newer Scofield’s I’ve seen it’s opposite — they put the outdated word in the text and the newer word in the margin.
I don’t know anything about “The Subject Bible”, so can’t comment on it. I found the store listing, but I’d like to thumb through it a bit before saying anything about it.
Copyright © Darrin Yeager 1998-2010
Comments
Question on Bible Translations
I just bought my nephew (he’s 13 years old) a bible as a gift and, since you seem to know your translations, I am wondering how good of a job I did. My nephew and his friend have been reading their way through the bible but my nephew has been using a KJV bible. No study notes or cross referencing, just a bible. It should come as no surprise that he has been struggling a bit. So, to help him out, I just bought him a Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) translation bible with Scofield III study notes.
I did some research and found that the HCSB translation uses an “optimal equivalence” translation philosophy and I really wasn’t able to find any information on how the Scofield III notes differed from the original Scofield study notes. I know that a lot of pastors who believe in a literal translation don’t like “dynamic equivalence” but I have no idea what the pros and cons are of the “optimal equivalence” approach. The few passages I looked up in the HCSB seemed to be reasonable translated but I don’t really have any expertise in translation issues.
I would appreciate your opinion on this (if this is asking for too much then I understand if I don’t hear back). Thank you!
Glenn
My recommendations...
Buzzwords like “optimal equivalence” don’t mean much except for marketing as a translation lies somewhere between paraphrased or literal. That’s it. Don’t concern yourself with the marketing, find out where it lies on the literal vs paraphrase line. Note that in general, you want a literal translation, but sometimes a paraphrase helps a lot. (Wikipedia has a good summary of the buzzwords if you’re interested)
For my personal use, I want a good literal translation, but also a good paraphrase as well. If you’re trying to find a good literal yet easy-to-read translation, good luck. That’s the Holy Grail of translation and nobody has found it yet. All these new translations with their marketing buzzwords essentially claim the same thing—it’s literal, yet easy to read.
Why both a separate literal and paraphrase? Consider Proverbs 16:1
What does that mean? It’s literal, but perhaps not clear. Sure, you can dig into the original language, but first, consider an extreme paraphrase:
Personally, I use both the most literal (KJV), along with two of the most paraphrased (Good News, New Living).
I’m certainly not surprised he has difficulty with the KJV. I’ve lost count of people I’ve found in the same situation (regardless of age) who want to read the Bible, but aren’t familiar with KJV style/vocabulary. As soon as they find something else, their reading takes off. So you’re on the right track (I strongly disagree with KJV-Only people who believe the KJV itself is divinely inspired, and on par with the original Greek/Hebrew. It’s a great translation, but even it has problems).
Look at the “Literal vs Paraphrase” section of the examples in Bible translation for more. I wrote that as a general introduction to the Bible translation issue, and gives you a good foothold to understand these issues.
For the Scofield III, the notes do differ from the original Scofield. A team revised them, so don’t think they’re Scofield’s original notes. That may or may not be good, depending on your view. For myself, I don’t mind, as I don’t take the notes as inspired anyway (some people do), and always check out whatever the notes say. But remember, any study Bible notes are not inspired—no matter which you choose, don’t blindly accept them as true! But in general, I like Scofield Bibles.
To the HCSB, it’s based on the “Nestle-Aland”, or Westcott-Hort Alexandrian text. The previous article has detail on why that isn’t such a great idea.
To compare versions, I generally check two passages —- 2 Timothy 2:15 and Ephesians 6:10–18.
“Study” has the correct flavor, it’s a diligent effort requiring work. “do your best” or something like it is a bit watered down. The HCSB “be diligent” isn’t too bad.
“Rightly dividing” is literal, it’s orthogonal, or a right angle. It’s precise. Some translations use “correctly handling” or similar, which isn’t exactly correct, but it’s not too bad either. HCSB “Correctly teaching” lies in between the two. It’s not the best, but far from the worst.
Ephesians 6. I’m quite familiar with this, and do a quick check to see how it flows.
That reads similar to the NIV in that they’ve added some ideas (v 13. “That is why” instead of “therefore”) and so on. “Vast strength” instead of “power of his might”.
After those two passages, since most modern translations use Westcott/Hort textual basis, I use the examples in the previous article to see how they handle it. Some translations follow Westcott/Hort (also known as UBS, and/or Nestle-Aland) more closely than others (NIV much more than NASB for example). Some translations actually delete entire verses (again, my Bible translation article has detail).
In short, I haven’t looked at it in detail, but on a quick glance I’d put the HCSB near the NIV in style and textual basis. It’s not too bad, but a bit wordy, and sometimes waters down too much. It’s also Westcott/Hort based, which is bad. For a 13 year old? It’s probably not too bad, but I’d need to examine it further.
My personal recommendation (depending on how his reading and comprehension skills are) for a 13 year old I’d use the New Living translation (likely in a Life Application Study Bible). After he’s used that for a while, move on to KJV/NKJV or NASB (in that order of preference). If KJV, I do like the Scofield Bibles, (1967 KJV remains my favorite, but I’ve thumbed through the Scofield III and like it as well).
Most importantly, understand all translations have problems. The key is understanding what those problems are, and why they exist. Don’t abandon the HCSB, since you’ve purchased it take some time and examine it thoroughly. Start with the previous article, and put several versions side-by-side and you’ll begin to get a better understanding of the Bible translation issue—knowledge which will serve you well.
In my study, for a paraphrase I use the New Living, and for literal the KJV/NKJV. Those two translations generally serve my needs. In the past I collected any new translation which popped up, but don’t find a use for them much anymore as NLT/KJV generally work for 95% of what I need to do (along with a Greek Dictionary).
Perhaps that’s a bit longer answer than you wanted, but hope that helps a bit.
Hi, I have a question about
Hi, I have a question about the Scofield Bibles. In this magazine www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org.au/qr/QR566.pdf an article talks about the commentary in the 1917 Scofield Bible, basically that they contain Westcott/Hort influences. Do you know much about this and is it an issue with the 1967 version? Thanks.
Thank you! Your answer wasn’t
Thank you! Your answer wasn’t too long and I’m pleased you spent the time to answer my question so thoroughly.
No, I’m not going to take away the bible I gave my nephew because the translation is not perfect. From what you wrote in your response the translation doesn’t appear to be as solid as I would have hoped but I think the HCSB will help him with his studies which is what I want to accomplish.
My nephew’s study buddy has decided he wants to be a pastor (we’ll see if he still feels that way in 10 years) and is earnest in trying to study the scriptures. From what I have been told it seems that the friend (and probably my nephew too) have come up with some novel interpretations of certain passages in the OT which is exactly what I would expect 13 year olds to do. I was hoping to provide through the study notes some direction for them. I know that study notes are not inspired but they may give the boys some food for thought that they wouldn’t have had otherwise.
I have you blog in my news reader and I read your new articles when they appear. However, I didn’t realize that you had so much information on bible translations available. I will read through your linked articles as time permits.
Thank you.
Glenn
1967 Scofield
Interesting article. First, unlike what the article states, I wouldn’t consider Scofield’s notes as “containing absolute truth”. I know some people do, but never place that much trust in notes or commentaries without verifying for myself. In that sense, what Scofield thought in 1917 doesn’t carry any more (or less) weight than any other commentator I might refer to.
I don’t actually have an original 1917 Scofield, so can’t verify the claims directly, but I did check against the 1967 Scofield, which was a revision of the 1917 edition (at the time they called it the “New Scofield Bible”). The recent Scofield III is yet another revision from the 1967 version.
Phrases like “The best manuscripts” or “the oldest” or something like that are almost always references to Westcott-Hort text. Assuming the article correctly quotes the 1917 Scofield notes, it would appear Scofield has some Westcott-Hort influence in his original 1917 notes which persisted in the 1967 version. I don’t have a Scofield III to check with, but guess they left them in.
However, one thing I do agree with from the article:
Don’t accept a study Bible’s notes just because some “scholar” wrote them. Do your own work. I’ve generally stopped using a study Bible and returned to what I started with — a 1967 Scofield, not for the notes, but for the way it handles the KJV text. I’m not a rabid “KJV-Only” person, more of a Textus-Receptus person, so updating some of the words not only doesn’t bother me, I think it’s valid.
When using a study Bible, it’s important to look very critically at any notes; Scofield shouldn’t be immune from that analysis.
Be a Berean and always check things out for yourself. Don’t trust someones notes just because they’re there.
Thanks!
Thanks for subscribing to the RSS feed. Hopefully it provides some new information and provokes thought. I write a mixture of Bible, politics, and science. I’ve got a few articles coming up on the tea-party as some say it’s un-Christian, and another on Romans 13 and Christians relationship with the government.
FYI-the Bible Translation article is available as a PDF if you want to print a nice copy or share it with friends.