Evaluating Translations

 Evaluating Translations^[1]

The history of the Bible in English is a fascinating and important story. There are many competent accounts available, and to cover the whole field would be beyond the scope of this book.⁴⁷ There are, however, two particularly important issues on which the Bible student should be informed. The first is that of the evaluation and use of the AV in the present generation. There are few issues among Bible students that are as emotionally charged or as complex. To what degree does the AV correspond to the originals? Is it a specially blessed translation? Is it somehow more “the Word of God” than others? Does it produce more fruit or disclose more of the will of God? There are a number of factors that should be brought to bear on these questions in order to evaluate them fairly and objectively. Although the issue cannot be covered fully here, the main question is: does the AV communicate the meaning of the Bible, in terms of style, grammar, and theology, better than other translations? Is it, in short, more understandable and accurate? This is really the key to evaluating any translation.

It would be helpful at this point to recall some of what was said above concerning languages and language change. A language is a social phenomenon, shaped by members of a speech community to best accomplish according to their views the needs of communicating within that community. Languages change, slowly, subtly, but inevitably, and English is no exception. In the more than 350 years since the publication of the AV, English, has changed in vocabulary, syntax, and other features of grammar. Much of the 1611 AV is strange and foreign to the late-twentieth-century ear. This factor alone hinders readability. New versions of the AV, which update its seventeenth-century language, are improvements on an important translation.

One must be very careful to acknowledge the deep influence that the AV has had on Western literature and world society. It has been unquestionably the most accepted and widely read English translation. Since the early seventeenth century, phrases from the AV have found their way into all forms of literature in the English language. Its style and sonorous tones in many places are still considered to demonstrate some of the finest English ever written. Nevertheless, many of today’s readers find other translations easier to comprehend.

As to the issue of accuracy and fidelity to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, there are two things that need to be mentioned. First, large numbers of discoveries have been made since the seventeenth century that bear upon biblical studies and the process of translation. More is understood today about the original languages, about archaeology, geography, history, and culture, and newer translations have been able to take advantage of this vast body of knowledge. This does not mean that the reader can be seriously misled in using the AV. But there can be a greater quantity of helpful information in new translations.

A second important area of which the Bible student should be aware is the issue of the manuscript source of various translations. Most available English translations have been produced by translators who knew and consulted Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, or, more typically, published editions. The variation among Hebrew editions of the Old Testament is not great. However, the Greek New Testament displays greater variation among editions. The AV is based in great part on the editions published by Theodore Beza in 1588 and 1598. These are similar to the 1516 edition compiled by Erasmus.⁴⁸ An edition published by Beza in 1565 was the basis for one produced by the Elzevir brothers of Leiden in 1633, which came to be called (on the basis of its editors’ description of it) the Textus Receptus, or “received text.” All of these editions were based in general on manuscripts copied at a later date than many that are available today. All other things being equal, the nearer a manuscript is dated to the original, the more likely it is to reflect the text of the original. There are many qualifications to that kind of statement, and many other important factors (for example, the manuscripts of the Textus Receptus type of edition do contain some variant readings that many contemporary textual critics view as likely to correspond to the original, although some of these are found in older manuscripts, too). Nevertheless, many scholars today feel that the kind of Greek text underlying the AV reflects the original Greek New Testament less accurately than that underlying more recent editions, which make greater use of manuscripts copied within a few centuries of the apostolic period. This is not to say that the AV is therefore a bad or misleading translation. It can be safely asserted that no major doctrine is endangered by the type of manuscript variations found in the text used for the AV. It is especially important to realize that one should not argue for the superiority of one translation on the basis of the supposed superiority of a text, Greek or Hebrew.

The argument that asserts that the AV is the best English translation because it preserves key doctrines which all others tend to slight is not really valid.⁴⁹ In fact the opposite is often true. This kind of argument is often used with more of an emotional basis than a scholarly one. One must be careful of becoming an instant scholar and expert in areas that take many years to master and in which there are complex issues.

Perhaps a helpful assessment would be to say that the AV is one among many important and helpful English translations. It is not “the Word of God” more than another theologically sound translation, for we do not possess the first manuscripts of any of the revealed Word. That is what we would need in order to have the exact “Word of God.”

Further, it must be remembered in evaluating or advocating the AV that languages other than English have and need translations. The AV is usable by only a portion of the world’s population. It would be fallacious to argue that no translation into another language could have the spiritual impact of the AV.

The original translators of the AV admitted the need for continual refinement and revision of any Bible translation.⁵⁰ Changes in biblical scholarship (discovery of manuscripts, new knowledge concerning languages, etc.) and in language itself necessitate this.⁵¹ Bible translation is never finished. The most up-to-date (language-wise) translations today will not be entirely satisfactory for readers a generation or two hence.⁵²

 

---

^[1] Karleen, Paul S. 1987. The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York: Oxford University Press.

⁴⁷ See, for example, Bruce, and also Kubo and Specht.

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

⁴⁸ See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 102, 105–6.

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

⁴⁹ See Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 99; Marchant A. King, “Should Conservatives Abandon Textual Criticism?” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973): 39; Douglas S. Chinn and Robert C. Newman, Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1979), 16–18.

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

⁵⁰ Bruce, 101–3.

⁵¹ See Kubo and Specht, 19–20.

⁵² For further material on evaluating the AV, see Carson.