Debating 101 - Bible Translations

Since this is a subject I've needed to explain more times than I care to think about...

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic. Most people can't read these ancient languages so most rely on english translations of the Bible such as the King James Version (KJV) or the New International Version (NIV). These translations differ from one another, some significantly, and these differences are often emphasized in debates to prove an argument. Unfortunately, doing so is rarely valid. Why? The person presenting the argument is rarely aware of differences in underlying texts, differences in translation methodology and the significance of both. Those are the biggest pitfalls people most fall into, in my experience. Closely followed by complete ignorance of how to evaluate specific translations.

Underlying Texts

Basically, there are 3 Greek textual families that a translating committee may refer to when a new Bible is commissioned. These are the Textus Receptus (which the KJV is based upon), the Alexandrian Text and the Byzantine (Majority) Text. The Alexandrian comprises the earliest documentary witnesses. The Byzantine comprises the most documentary witnesses. The Textus Receptus...Well, do a generic google search on it and you'll very rapidly grasp issues with the TR, but it's primary benefit is, IMO, tradition.

For a valid comparison, the Bibles should belong to the same textual family. Comparing the KJV with the NIV, for instance, would be a fallacious comparison since they are based on different underlying texts (for a start).

Which underlying text is best?

My opinion only, but I think the Alexandrian text is best because that text type is closest in time to the autographs. But really, the differences between the Majority and Alexandrian texts are very minor, nor are these differences doctrinally significant. Granted, the Textus Receptus has more than a few differences that aren't so minor. Entire passages are found in the Textus Receptus that are not found in either the Alexandrian or Majority Texts. But again, they aren't doctrinally significant. One should be aware of these differences so one doesn't inadvertently cite 1 John 5:7-8 as a proof for the Trinity, for instance (unless one is prepared to argue the intergrity of that text). But the doctrine of the Trinity isn't taught in 1 John 5:7-8 alone. So again, although I think the differences are interesting from the perspective of textual criticism, they are insignificant when it comes to doctrine.

Translation Method

In a nutshell, there are three methods of translating the Greek. The first is formal equivalence, or a word-for-word translation (my personal preference). Examples include the KJV, the NASB, and the YLT. Formal equivalents should be used for ANY argument based on word studies from the Greek!!! Dynamic equivalents, rather than translating the exact word, instead seeks to translate the thought of the original writer (which is helfpul when it comes to figures of speech, etc that the modern reader may be completely unaware of). Examples include the NIV, CEV, and the NEB. Readers should be on guard against possible bias where the translators defer to the thought rather than the literal wording because the passage's thought can be subjective. Finally, we have paraphrased Bibles. Rather than following the word or the thought, these Bibles rephrase the text (the Greek or another translation) in simple, more contemporary language and as such, readers should be extremely on guard against translator bias. Examples include The Message and the Living Bible.

Which translation method is best?

Personally, I think they all are in that they can all be useful in teaching doctrine to different believers in wildly different circumstances. We don't all fit the same cookie cutter mold so why should our Bibles? If you're not familiar with idioms and/or aren't conjoined at the hip with word studies from the original languages, there's nothing wrong with using a dynamic equivalent. I turn to my NIV for devotional purposes. For word studies, yes, you need a formal equivalent. Formal equivalents purport to adhere the closest to the words of the Greek text so would produce the most valid results for comparisons. Paraphrases are a good starting off point for the unchurch, those who are only starting to learn English or can't read well.

As long as you're aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen Bible's methodology, I see nothing inherently wrong with any of them.

Evaluating Bible Translations

There are several important criteria for assessing specific Bibles. In no particular order:

Was the Bible translated by one person or translated by a committee? A committee tends to check one another against translational bias. Not that entire committees cannot exhibit bias, of course, but idiosyncrasities unique to individual translators will have less likelihood of slipping into the text if more than one person is working on the translation. Basically, the more translators on the comittee, the better.

What are the credentials of the translator(s)? If the translators have not formally studied the original languages or cannot prove their expertise (if independently studied), only an idiot would trust them to translate their Bibles. Unless, of course, they are simply paraphrasing an already extant english version. And I'd still be very wary.

Who commissioned the translation and for what purpose (if any)? Generally speaking, if a specific denomination commissioned the translation, check for a broad spectrum of denominations amongst the translation committee members to ensure denominational bias didn't encroach.

How old is the translation and have updated editions been released? With the discovery and study of ancient documents, our understanding of the ancient languages has increased, which says nothing of textual critical issues that may not be reflected in much older Bibles.

How has the translation been received among Bible scholars? If scholars nigh uniformly criticize a particular translation, that's not good, LOL. You don't need glowing reviews from every NT or OT scholar around, but if you notice a significant degree of objection, be wary.

What are valid comparisons?

To make valid comparisons among translations, stay within one translation methodology.

If possible, stay within one underlying textual family. If it's not possible to stay within a single textual family, be aware that criticisms based on differences in the underlying texts are not valid.

Counter-arguments based on the criteria for evaluating translations are valid as long as these criteria differ between the translations offered for comparison (for instance, Bible A was translated by one person whereas Bible B was translated by a committee of 20) and these differences are significant in either number or degree (for instance Bible A was translated by one respected scholar whereas Bible B was translated by 20 unknown/unproven scholars).

Finally, I cannot stress this enough: FORMAL EQUIVALENTS SHOULD ALWAYS AND *ONLY* BE USED IN WORD STUDY COMPARISONS!!! Dynamic equivalents and paraphrases do not claim to be word for word translations, which invalidates them as credible sources for word studies!