Strengths and Weaknesses of Translations

     All translations of the scriptures have strengths and weaknesses. Ideally we want the
strengths to outweigh the weaknesses. We also want the main strength to be fidelity to
the original texts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). The question is: what do we mean by
"fidelity to the original texts?" This question must be discussed because many people
believe "fidelity" necessitates that a translation be strictly literal. The problem is, no
translation   is   strictly   literal.   If    it    were   it   would   not   be   readable   or  
understandable to the masses.  Furthermore, that is not how  the translation process
works. For instance, John 3:16, a text known by most people who study the Bible,
literally reads, "This manner for loved the God the world that the Son the unique one
he gave that everyone believing in him may not perish but have life eternal."   Friends,
is it not apparent that the Greek sentence must be arranged in a way that make it
readable in the English language? We want to be sure that the rearrangement does no
injustice to the meaning of Greek text. So, we could translate it in this way: "God loved
the world in this manner, he gave his unique Son, that everyone who believes in him may
not perish, but have eternal life."

     All translation involves interpretation. It is unavoidable because a translator must
determine  what  the  words  in  the  original  language mean, before he can choose the
equivalent in the receptor language that reflects the meaning of the original word or
phrase. Many people object to translations such as the NIV because they believe
interpretation and translation are necessarily mutually exclusive. The fact is, the NIV
contains some translation choices that are among the very best available in any English
version of the scriptures. (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:5-11) The latest edition of the NIV
(NIV-2011), is a marked improvement over the previous edition (NIV-1984) in many
ways! It isn't perfect, but it is imminently readable, and highly accurate most of the time.
I refuse to take part in any uninformed movement that criticizes a translation on the basis
that it is "too interpretative" or  that it is "Calvinistic in its translation choices." Study a
translation on a passage by passage basis. Reject what is inaccurate and accept what is
accurate in any translation.  The KJV  contains  "Calvinistic renderings."  (Acts 2:47;
Acts 13:48; Heb. 6:6) Will the detractors discard it because it is sometimes contains a
Calvinistic slant in certain key texts?

     The ASV-1901 is a highly accurate English version in that it is very close to the
original texts. To this day it remains an excellent study version of the scriptures. Yet, it
uses old English, is not very readable, often contains the word order of the Hebrew and
Greek instead of English word order, and sometimes has textual choices that do not
accurately reflect the meaning of the words in the Hebrew and Greek texts.  The same
things  are  sometimes  true of  the  RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc.  Ideally, we want
translations that are as literal as possible and as idiomatic as necessary. Strive to know
the strengths and weaknesses of the translation(s) you select for use.
                                                                                                        R. Daly

Copyright 2012
                                                                                                     

    

    

"Great Stories From The Bible" CDs Are Now Available

  
      The "Great Stories From The Bible" set of CDs is now available to order. The
project consists  of  2  CDs  containing  many  of  the  great  stories  of  the  Old
and New Testaments read  with  "vocal emphasis."  Instead of a  mere  mechanical
reading  of  the text,  the stories are read  with  emotion  and voice inflection in order
to convey the "feeling" and "power" of the scriptures . The CDs are mailed in durable
plastic flexible cases. The cost is $15 per set consisting of 2 CDs.

     Some     of     the     great     Bible     stories     that     the     CD     contains     are :  
The      Creation     (Genesis 1);     Noah      and      the      Flood      (Genesis 6-8);  
God  Tests  Abraham (Genesis 22);  Moses  and  the  Burning  Bush (Exodus 3) ;
Israel  Crosses  the  Red  Sea  (Exodus 14); Moses  and  the  Glory  of  Yahweh
(Exodus 33:12-34:9);  David  and  Goliath  (1 Samuel 17);  Legion  (Mark 5:1-20);
The    Death    and    Resurrection    of    Christ   (Matthew 27:45-28:20);   The  
Establishment of the Lord's Congregation (Acts 2).

     The purpose of this recording project is to glorify God and to encourage meaningful
reading of God's word. I  incorporate  my  own  translation throughout and I believe all
readers and listeners can greatly benefit  from  the  work that has gone into making  the
reading of the Great Bible Stories available. If  you  would  like  more information, you
may  contact  me  by  e.mailing me at daly_nt_translation_project@live.com or call
me by dialing 317-457-1953. 
                                                                                                                     R. Daly

Copyright 2012

John 7:53-8:11

     The King James Version contains the pericope about the woman caught in the act of
adultery. Many of the modern English translations contain it, either set off from the text or
in brackets, with a note that the earliest manuscripts do not contain it.

     John 7:53-8:11 is not in codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, nor is it in p66, a Bodmer
papyrus  dated  from  about  200 A.D. and p75 dated from the early third century. No 
patristic writer prior to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century mentions the passage.
It isn't in the Diatessaron, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Tertullian, and Cyprian. It isn't in
any of the earliest manuscripts from the second to the fourth century. It appears first in
the fifth century in Codex Bezae (D), and no other Greek manuscript contains it until the
ninth century.

     John 7:53-8:11 as it stands in the English versions portrays the Lord as we see him in
the undisputed texts; compassionate, just, and  forgiving.  Many  passionate  sermons
have been preached from this text and others will undoubtedly follow, yet there is little
doubt that the passage was not written by John, therefore not a part of the original text.

                                                                                                                    R. Daly

Copyright 2012

Acts 8:37

     In the King James Version Acts 8:37 reads, "And Philip said, 'If thou believest with
all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said , I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God." This verse is not found in most modern translations, e.g. ASV-1901,
RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV-2011. Some translations include the passage in a
footnote with the explanation that it is likely an interpolation, that is, an insertion in or
addition to the original text. People often assume  that the omission of a passage found
in the King James Version is an instance of subtracting from the word of God. How
can omitting a passage that was not in the original text be equal to subtracting from
the word of God? Omitting  Acts 8:37 from the English text is not equivalent to saying
there is no need for a confession prior to being immersed.  Other passages teach that
one must confess that Jesus is the Son of God. (Rom. 10:10; 1 Tim. 6:12) The issue is
whether the textual evidence is for or against the  inclusion of Acts 8:37 as a part of 
God's word.

     The passage doesn't appear till the 6th century in the manuscripts. It is not found
in p45, a 3rd century manuscript, or in p74, a seventh century manuscript. It is not in
Sanaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or Ephraemi Rescriptus, a 5th century manuscript.
It is not found in the ancient versions, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic. The ancient patristic
writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyrprian, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, and Augustine
add the reading with a little variation. The Byzantine text omits the reading. Erasmus
included   the  passage  in  his  critical  editions  because  he  concluded  that  it  had
inadvertently been omitted from the textual tradition.  As  a  result  of his inclusion, it
became a part of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.
                                                                                                                R. Daly

Copyright 2012
                                                                                
  
 

Yahweh In Translation

     I recently read an article by a preacher in which he objected to the use of Yahweh,
the  personal  name  of  the  deity,  in  translating  the  tetragrammaton  (YHWH)  in
the approximately 6828 times the term occurs in the Hebrew text. His reasoning is
that the use of Yahweh in translation tends to be confusing to most people because
they are not accustomed to hearing and/or reading the sacred name.

     First, I  doubt  that  the  degree  of confusion that he alleges really exists. The
American Standard  Version  published  in  1901  made  a  salient  effort  for
consistency by translating YHWH with the hybrid term Jehovah in all of its occurrences.
Some other English versions also use Jehovah for the Tetragrammaton. The KJV even
uses  Jehovah  a  few times. (cf. Gen. 22:14; Ex. 6:3; 17:15; Jdg. 6:24; Psa. 83:18;
Isa. 12:2; 26:4)  Furthermore, the  Jerusalem  Bible  uses  Yahweh  in thousands of
places, and  the  Holman  Christian  Standard  Bible  uses  it  over 600 times in the
Old Testament.

     Second,  even    if    the   use  of   Yahweh   initially confuses  those  who  lack
familiarity  with  the  name, is  it  not be the duty  of  preachers, who ought to be
exegetes of the sacred scriptures to explain its meaning and use? Do we not do this
with other words and concepts with  which  people  may not be familiar? I believe
much of the confusion regarding the issue of translating the Bible, is the direct result
of those who know failing to adequately inform those who do not know ! There are
ways of teaching our people the reasons why some things are translated the way they
are, and why some things need changing without being too technical and sounding
too academic. The bottom line is, we have the duty to teach people so they can be
informed. (2 Tim. 2:15) We who preach need to stay abreast of important issues,
and Bible translation is such an issue. There  is  no  excuse  for  spiritual and mental
laziness.

     In my judgment, there is one thing confusing about the way most modern versions
address the issue of translating YHWH. It is this: where YHWH occurs in the text, they
put   the  word  LORD   in  all  capitals, except  in  those  instances  when  Adonai
(lord, ruler) and YHWH appear together. When they do occur together, YHWH is
translated GOD. Most people never notice such, and when they do, they have no idea
why Lord with lower case letters appears, and why at other times it is LORD with all
upper case letters. Then at other times we read God with lower case letters and in other
instances it appears as GOD with all upper case letters. Now that is what confuses many
people. They are unaware that such variety is an "expedient" used by translators to
differentiate Lord and God from YHWH.

     So, why not use Yahweh  in  the  places  where  YHWH  appears  in  the  text of
the Old Testament? Why not equip oneself to teach the people about the sacred name
as    we    teach   them   about   words   like   immerse,  congregation,  hades,  and
countless other words and concepts in our writing, preaching, and teaching?

                                                                                                               R. Daly

Copyright 2011

     

ESV or NASB?

     I am occasionally asked, "Which translation is better, the ESV or the NASB?"
Both are excellent translations. They approach translation "theory" from slightly
different perspectives. The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation, meaning it
attempts word for word correspondence when possible, but it does not hesitate
to be "dynamic" or "interpretive" when necessary. The NASB leans more
toward the formal equivalence method of translation. In this sense it is generally
more of a modified literal text than the ESV. The translation philosophy of the
NASB makes it slightly more difficult (though not impossible) to read than the
ESV. The NASB is generally closer in "form" to the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek texts, and as a result some of its phrasing is awkward. Neither
translation is strictly literal. If they were, they would not be understandable to
most readers of English.

     The NASB tends to pay relatively close attention to Greek verbs and
participles. For instance, in Colossians 3:1 Paul uses the word zeteite, which
is a present active imperative. Most English versions say, "seek," but the NASB
translates it as "keep seeking." Some scholars call this over translation, but it
is useful to the Greek student and non Greek student alike, as it shows what is
going on in the Greek text. Examples of this kind in the NASB can be multiplied.

     The ESV is slightly more accurate than the NASB in that it sometimes makes
better textual choices because its lexical base is better. For example, the NASB
translates the noun paidagogos as "tutor" in Galatians 3:24 and 25. This choice
was likely influenced by older Greek lexicons such as Abbott-Smith's Manual
Greek Lexicon Of The New Testament. A paidagogos was not a tutor, but
was frequently a slave who was entrusted with the care and supervision of a male
child, hence a guardian, guide, custodian, disciplinarian. This is reflected by
modern Greek lexicons (BDAG, Trenchard, etc.) and  modern versions of the
scriptures. (cf. RSV, ESV, NIV, NRSV)  There are several instances wherein
the NASB's textual choices are deficient, but to its credit, the marginal notes
often contain the correct translation. It seems to me that the correct choices
should be in the text.

     There are also instances where both the ESV and the NASB miss the same
point in translation. In Acts 19 Paul came to Ephesus and found some disciples.
He asked them "Into what then were you immersed?" They replied, "Into the
immersion of John." Paul taught them about Jesus and on hearing this "they were
immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus." (verses 3 and 5) Both the ESV and the
NASB say they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Both translations
acknowledge "into" is what the text literally says in their footnotes and marginal
notes. The Greek  preposition  used  is  "eis"  in each of the three instances in
the context. The ASV says "into" in all three instances.

     A person can learn what to do to be saved by diligently studying both the ESV
and the NASB. They compliment each other in many ways. Study from both texts.
The ESV is more readable in part because it is not as literal as the NASB. The
NASB, like the ASV-1901, is a good study bible because of its closeness to the
underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The marginal notes in the NASB
are among the best found in any English version of the scriptures!
                                                                                                         R. Daly
Copyright 2011 

Galatians 5:6 In The English Standard Version

     In the English Standard Version of the Bible, Galatians 5:6 says, "For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith
working through love."  The sentence in the Greek New Testament reads, "en gar 
Christo Iesou oute peritome ti ischuei oute akrobustia alla pistis di agapes
energoumene." The translation of the phrase is, "For in Christ Jesus neither
circumcision  nor  uncircumcision  has any power, but  faith working through love."
(Daly's New Testament Translation)

     I was recently asked," Is the phrase translated 'but only faith working through
love' (Gal. 5:6) in the ESV accurately translated? " The answer is no, it does not
accurately reflect what the Greek text says or means. The addition of the word
"only" is an unfortunate and unjustified rendering. The text simply does not say
"only faith" or "faith only."

     The ESV is a revision of the RSV-1971 and not even the RSV adds the word
"only" to this text. Neither the KJV, ASV, NASB, or the HCSB add the word
"only" in the Galatians' passage. They remain true to the original text in this place,
and they do not reflect a theological slant in their translation of the passage.

     Contextually, Paul warns against being "entangled again in a yoke of bondage."
(5:1) His argument is, it is not works of the law by which one is justified, so the
act of physical circumcision is without power. The hope of righteousness is not
through circumcision or uncircumcision, "but faith working through love." The
Calvinist does not accept the efficacy of Christ's blood through immersion because
he sees it as a work. Yet, the very people to whom Paul wrote had been immersed
into Christ. (Gal. 3:27) Therefore, Paul's teaching about faith, grace, and works
must not be interpreted in a way that excludes immersion in order to be saved from
sin!

     Does this mean that the ESV is a bad translation? No. It means that the ESV like
the KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, etc. has passages that need to
be weighed against the original texts and corrected. The goal of Bible translation is
to give mankind the word of the living God in a way that is both understandable and
accurate. We should expect no less.
                                                                                                                 R. Daly
Copyright 2011