my first attempts of other translations were :
Nelson Bibles the WTS used to endorse
Youngs Literal Translation
Both use 'Jehovah' in the Hebrew Scriptures and that was a familiar comfort to me......
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious 86 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
wannabefree
I was speaking with a pioneer sister (cobe's wife) about NWT and Truth in Translation ... she thought the "J" texts were first century copies. I think most Witnesses probabaly do think that.
The problem for me is the lack of consistency by NWT rendering Jehovah in the NT. They don't always follow their own rule ... and some of those places, you can see why because in the study edition the footnote does show the alternate rendering with the divine name. That is one reason I believe, even though Jehovah shouldn't be in the NT, the translators tried to be honest because even though problematic, they show the alternate in the footnote.
-
truebelieverbob
Back in the 1st century christianity started with the jews. Without a doubt , they used the divine name to refer to God. Also , they taught the name of God to the gentiles when they came into the christian congregation. History shows us it was 1-2 hundred years later that the doctrine of the trinity was adopted into psuedo christianity.
Well the NWT does 2 things that is superior to other translations. They magnify the name of God and they don't show bias in the NWT to back the trinity , which most translations do . This works for me . I want to be as close to the 1st century christians as possible. The REAL christianity !!!
-
PSacramento
None of the 1st or 2nd century works show YHWH, and the only verifiabale mention of the "name" of God in the NT is in revelation: Halleluijah.
-
MarcusScriptus
I’m related to a Bible translator who worked on an ecumenical Bible version, and I submitted this question to him (which is why it took so long after your original question that I am posting). This is his reply:
The concept of one Bible translation being more praised or accurate than another is a fallacy. The science governing the rendition of Bible languages into modern English is so exact that the only reason there are various translations is because one group or denomination favors a particular rendering of a word or two or the use of a certain idiomatic expression over another.
Beyond this all modern translations currently on the market are as accurate as the other. None is more praised than the other in some “secular” fashion as I am aware of, but I do know that certain religious movements prefer one version over another. The Evangelistic movement in the United States has made the New International Version the best-selling version in our country, but these numbers might be misleading.
These same movements buy large quantities of the NIV for pews and distribution often creating large excesses to be kept on hand by church groups and individuals that do not get out to the public at large. This I have witnessed personally. It doesn’t account for the total popularity, but it cannot be discounted either for the mere fact that the NIV is officially used in only a minority of denominations as the translation of choice. The NIV was translated by a board consisting of Evangelistic Christians, but the Psalter was recently approved for personal study for Roman Catholics in the United States by the USCCB which has been published with an imprimatur by the Catholic Publishing Company.
When various religious denominations come together and a Bible translation is required, it is the New Revised Standard Version that is almost always chosen. The reason for this is that the board of translators is a balance of various denominations, including Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and Jewish. If there is a translation that is “recommended” or “praised” most by most scholars, it is the NRSV. This is by no means a universal agreement, but because of it being the least biased in rendering and being so easy to read while retaining such great accuracy (it also has every book of every canon translated) it has become the version of choice by practically all scholastic programs in the US. My experience is that it is the least favored choice of the American public, however.
The NASB is the sister version of the NRSV, but because it was rendered by a very conservative board of Christians excluding Orthodox, Catholics, and Jews, it is generally not accepted in scholarly circles. However, of all the versions on the market it is probably the most accurate for a formal-equivalent version. It is also the most difficult to read and the worst of all the versions at keeping to English idiom. It is highly favored by Fundamentalists, but generally by groups that tend to engage in triumphalism. This may be the reason it doesn’t get the praise that it deserves on its own merits.
There are some very new versions on the market, but it is still too early to tell what is going to happen with these. The English Standard Version (which, by the way, does not represent the “standard” recognized by any denomination, so I am not sure why they added that into their title) is very easy to read, very exact, but is yet incomplete and does show some renditions that, while quite inventive in originality, are problematic as they seem to favor less accepted definitions of some terms that have been viewed as vital to Christology.
Again there are other versions like the New Living Bible, and even something called the World English Bible (WEB). While some individuals favor these, none of them stand out over the others.
Last, but not least, is a peculiar oddity that I wish I understood. The most widely read English version of a Catholic translation in the entire world is the New Jerusalem Bible. It is neither formal equivalent, nor is it dynamic, nor entirely something meeting in the middle. It is highly accurate however, and it’s best described as “literary,” meaning it attempts to render things as accurately as possible without sacrificing how beautiful the rendering can be made by engaging the English language to its fullest.
Usually, when the NRSV is not available or not chosen for a scholarly group, the second version that is usually chosen in its stead is the NJB. And if there’s a Protestant who wants to have a Catholic Bible on hand (or even just wants to read a very beautiful and expressive translation), universally, across boundaries of conservative and liberal groups alike it is this marvelous version you will most often find being used.
However, and this is what I don’t understand, it is not the official version read in Roman Catholic services in the USA. For some reason the New American Bible (which is not bad but leans toward something similar to the NASB—and therefore doesn’t lend itself to being poetic) is the only one allowed to be read in Mass for Catholics in our country (they can read and own any other version of a Catholic Bible, like the NJB, however).
This is likely because it is owned by the USCCB, and they receive royalties from its sale. While the NAB is accurate, it is not as scholastic or artful as the NJB. And currently the NAB is in its own self-created limbo as a new revision has been made but not able to be released due to the USCCB not giving a percentage of the proceeds to the translation board itself who hold some claim on its copyright.
Perhaps no other version of a Catholic Bible has been so highly praised by non-Catholics as the NJB, so I am perplexed at why the NJB is not officially used in American Liturgy. If it is just a matter of funds, then the USCCB is doing their people a disservice by ignoring what in Europe and the rest of the world recognizes as one of the best works in Catholic translation—and translations in general for that matter (as many of my colleagues have agreed)—we have on hand.
Thus, as this somewhat lengthy explanation shows, a scholastically applauded version is not usually the one the public or a denomination applauds. Practically all else is as accurate as anyone needs, with only word choices and syntax creating the differences that make one version stand out over another.
C.J.M.H
I asked if he was including the New World Translation in his remarks. He replied: “Are you kidding? That’s considered anathema is my world.”
-
Terry
If you want to connect to something divine, lofty, meaningful and crystal clear as well as beautiful I can only recommend THE MESSAGE bible.
Take your favorite scriptures and read them in THE MESSAGE. It is like reading them with "understanding" for the very first time.
It is a personal translation and not an academic or strict stylistically rigorous one.
Take the time to check it out.
I find that Evangelical types tend to pooh-pooh this translation.
What better recommendation can you get??
-
Leolaia
Thank you, that is a very interesting read.
The concept of one Bible translation being more praised or accurate than another is a fallacy. The science governing the rendition of Bible languages into modern English is so exact that the only reason there are various translations is because one group or denomination favors a particular rendering of a word or two or the use of a certain idiomatic expression over another.
This is well said. It is not as if they are translating ancient Ugaritic, where the language is not ideally understood, and so there are large differences between the translations of Ras Shamra texts (compare the versions of Pardee, Wyatt, Smith, and Margalit with each other). Most English translations, particularly of the NT, differ mainly in turns of phrase and wording and are largely equivalent. The NWT stands more apart on account of its many unique and/or uncommon features motivated by distinctive JW beliefs pre-dating the translation (e.g. putting "Samuel" into scare-quotes in 1 Samuel 28, inserting "Jehovah" arbitrarily throughout the NT, making references to crucifixion "impalement", rendering kolasin as "cutting off" instead of "punishment", inserting "[other]" in Colossians 3:15-18, inserting end-quotes in Revelation 22:15 to prevent the Alpha and Omega title from being applied to Jesus, etc.). This seems to be akin to what we find with other denominations having their own favorite expression or rendering, except that there is just a heck of a lot more of them (and often, more controversial renderings), and often without a basis in the text itself, or involving problematic lexical meanings.
Last, but not least, is a peculiar oddity that I wish I understood. The most widely read English version of a Catholic translation in the entire world is the New Jerusalem Bible. It is neither formal equivalent, nor is it dynamic, nor entirely something meeting in the middle. It is highly accurate however, and it’s best described as “literary,” meaning it attempts to render things as accurately as possible without sacrificing how beautiful the rendering can be made by engaging the English language to its fullest.
The old JB is my favorite Bible for just reading. The English indeed is very beautiful and easy to read, but what I like most about it is how the text is arranged (with the chapters and verse markers outside the text and with headings and subheadings), which makes it very easy to grasp the author's larger rhetorical arguments, or narrative flow. But I agree that the rendering is neither literal nor dynamic and I have often found needing to consult the Greek text because sometimes the translation veers just a little bit into paraphrase. In general, if I am interested in a given passage, it is always best to consult a variety of commentaries to see how different people have analyzed the text, because often the decisions involved can represent one of several possible options, where the best decision can often be unclear with different commentators or translators taking different positions on the issue. Because critical commentaries often have their own translations, you can see firsthand how the translator adopts one rendering or another.
-
Wonderment
Thanks Marcus Scriptus for the Bible translator comments. I appreciated that insight.
Can you provide us with at least the name of the ecumenical version you mentioned?
And Terry, I agree with you that reading the Message Bible is refreshing and revealing. We just have to be a bit more careful because of the many liberties this type of version take. It still one of my favorites. That chapter (Romans 14 ) should be read aloud in every congregation of JWs. It is good!
-
BluesBrother
Marcus Scriptus - thank you for your post and the enlightened comments of your friend, the translator..
Regarding the use of the Name in the New Testament - I am no scholar but it is becoming clear to me that the WT depiction of first Century Jewish christions using the name as casually as J W's do today is just plain false.
As far as I can tell the Jewish rules at the time were that The Name could only be spoken aloud by the High Priest, in The Temple on the Day of Atonement. They used Adonai otherwise.
So when the NWT depicts Jesus (Luke 4) as standing in the synagogue in Nazareth and saying "Jehovah's spirit is upon me" - I do not believe he would have done so, without causing a riot. Instead it says they "Marvelled at the winsome words"
-
wannabefree
I asked if he was including the New World Translation in his remarks. He replied: “Are you kidding? That’s considered anathema is my world.”
Why? Is it because he actually studied the translation or because it was done by Jehovah's Witnesses?
I refer back to BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation". Like Marcus Scriptus relative who is a translator, he found NAB to be a fairly accurate translation, however, BeDuhn also felt that NWT was a fairly accurate translation (least amount of bias) so, is there an automatic bias against NWT ... it seems that way.