Three Recent Bible Translations: An Old Testament Perspective

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2003 by Lyons, Michael A, Tooman, William A

THREE RECENT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: AN OLD TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE

I. INTRODUCTION

A glance at a book distributor's catalog or a publisher's website is enough to confirm that the proliferation of English translations and study editions has reached Brobdingnagian proportions. On the one hand, the seemingly endless marketing of Bibles targeting niche groups based on age, race, gender, marital status, denomination, and addiction can create the dangerous illusion that the people of God do not in fact share the same Word. On the other hand, the Bible has always been accompanied by a variety of translations-at an early date by multiple Greek translations, followed shortly by translations in Aramaic, Syriac and Latin. In our opinion, the multiplicity of translations can be a sign of a healthy interest in the Bible and is to be expected where there is diversity in reading habits and abilities.

Historically, motives for producing new translations or editions of the Bible have been numerous: the need to account for a change in language usage (semantic shift, obsolescence, a change in the use of gendered language), a desire to improve readability or accuracy (usually by emphasizing a dynamic or formal equivalence theory of translation), a desire to provide explanation, or the desire to address a perceived lack of biblical literacy or availability. Finally, some translations and study editions may be encouraged by publishers seeking to market a product to a particular target audience. Both doctrinal and cultural differences create an environment ripe for exploitation by those who would have readers believe that "finally there is a Bible that is just for you!"1

In the last century, most translations have been a response to a combination of these concerns. The three Bibles reviewed here are no exception. The desire to represent current language usage and follow a particular translation technique is addressed in different ways by all three Bibles. Concerns about biblical availability and literacy are addressed in different ways by two of the Bibles (The Message and the NET Bible).

This review will focus on the stated goals of each translation, paying particular attention to translation technique and accuracy. While the slogan that "all translation is interpretation" seems to be increasingly used to justify the acceptability of various translations, we believe that this claim is incorrect. Interpretation presumes a choice, whether conscious or unconscious, between alternatives; where there are no possible alternatives, a translational equivalent is not an interpretation. It is obvious that no translation is ever perfectly synonymous with its source text, but this does not mean that all equivalents are interpretive, or that accuracy in translation is unattainable. Even when there is a choice between semantic equivalents (or syntactic equivalents, which constitute a rather different category), the nature of the equivalent selected may be due to the demands of the target language rather than to a desire to explain the text, or to an unconscious ideological position.

When confronted with the question, "Which of these Bibles is best?" or "What translation should I use?" neither of us would give an unqualified recommendation of any translation over another. For reasons that will be apparent below, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which we would recommend The Message for regular reading or study. However, the ESV and NET Bible-when viewed in their entirety-are in our opinion as good as other widely used translations (e.g. NRSV, NASB, NIV). However, as we shall demonstrate, their strengths, weaknesses, goals, techniques, and target audiences are all quite different from each other.

II. THE ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION

1. The ESV project. The English Standard Version (ESV) was prepared by a 14-member translation oversight committee in consultation with 50 translation review scholars and more than 50 members of an advisory council. This team is described as international and interdenominational and is said to "share a common commitment to the truth of God's Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy."2 The names of the oversight committee and review scholars are available from the publisher.

The preface situates the ESV in the "classic mainstream of English Bible translations," citing Tyndale's New Testament, the KJV, RV, ASV, and RSV. The translators state that the ESV is "adapted from the Revised Standard Version," that the 1971 RSV text is the "starting point" for the ESV, and that each word in the ESV has been compared with the original languages "to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity." The preface claims that "archaic language has been brought to current usage" and that "significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts."3

2. Textual base. The preface depicts the ESV'S textual decisions in the following way:4

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. . . . The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in ESV'S attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions. In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text.