Three Recent Bible Translations: A New Testament Perspective

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2003 by Davids, Peter H

I. INTRODUCTION

As certainly noted in the other reviews in this series, the three translations under consideration in this review, The Message, the NET Bible or New English Translation (The NET), and the English Standard Version (ESV) differ radically in purpose and therefore tone. The NET is full of notes, both study notes and translator's notes, which include transliterated Greek, Greek characters, and textual information (including the traditional symbols of a selection of textual witnesses). In linguistic tone it has chosen to be a relatively contemporary study Bible. The ESV, on the other hand, deliberately seeks to be traditional, to emulate the stately English of the RSV and older translations. My edition came without significant notes other than central column cross references. The Message is unabashedly contemporary in its language, aiming at an audience that is, if anything, unfamiliar with the Bible. These three are diverse indeed.

In two ways all three are similar. First, all are computer-friendly. The NET is freely available on the web as well as purchasable in the Logos/Libronix system, while the other two came with accompanying CDs for use on my computer. Thus even a traditional translation is not so traditional as to be only a paper product. Since I do not carry a paper Bible outside my home and office (I have German, Greek, Hebrew, and English versions on my HP Jornada, which is always with me and far handier to use), this admission of contemporary reality is welcome. To my knowledge only the NET and ESV have a Windows CE version; perhaps the audience of The Message would be unlikely to use such a version. The one caveat I must add is that I had to install a new program on my desktop computer to run the ESV and The Message, for I did not find ESV available in my normal biblical software and chose not to pay to unlock The Message. second, all use the paragraph as the primary division of the text, The Message (in the printed edition) leaving out verse numbers altogether and the ESV putting them in bold superscript where they are not too obtrusive. The NET puts them in bold regular type with the chapter number repeated for each verse, which is a rather irritating feature if one wishes to read more than a verse or two.

When we move beyond the outward features, it is fair to ask, "How does one review a Bible translation?" Since we are not critiquing the content of what is being translated (as one might with a translated NT commentary or monograph), we need to examine the effectiveness of the translation in communicating the message of the original text. As an active scholar who both teaches seminary students and works within the context of a church, I have two constituencies in view. Thus my main consideration will be how helpful each of these translations will be to one or the other of the constituencies. Will The Message assist someone new to an Alpha course in understanding what God wishes to say to him or her? It is clearly not aimed at the seminary student or even the elders in the local church. Will the NET actually assist a pastor or serious student of the Scripture to understand it better? Will the ESV be especially helpful to some constituency in the Church? These are the questions that need to be raised. Furthermore, as the reader will quickly see, "helpful" or "assist" means both "communicate understandably" and "communicate the sense of the underlying Greek text accurately." Neither side of the balance can be neglected.

Before turning to some sample passages, a general comment is in order. When it comes to communicating the Greek text, the NET, as noted above, has textual notes. From my point of view, the limited selection of witnesses is well-chosen as far as it goes, but one should be aware that the selection is indeed limited. For example, the papyrus witnesses to the catholic epistles are absent and the Byzantine tradition is represented by a single uncial (W). The question this raises is, "Who would use these notes?" Does a person who is reading the Bible in English need even such limited textual notes, especially if she reads no Greek? Should not those who can read Greek be referred to a critical Greek text where they can compare various readings in Greek? This is a significant general issue that the NET raises when one asks how useful it is to its putative constituency. It also raises the question of exactly who makes up this constituency.

II. EXAMPLES

With that question raised, let us turn to specifics. We will look at how each translation handles a series of four texts, texts chosen more or less at random from Paul, the Gospels, and the general epistles, which should bring out the differences among the translations.

1. Example 1. 1 Cor 7:1 - 5 (in each case the full paragraph is included to reveal differences in paragraph divisions).

None of the translations makes the mistake of the NIV, "It is good for a man not to marry" (this is corrected in the TNIV). Both the NET and the ESV correctly translate the sexual idiom as "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." Both indicate through quotation marks (and the NET also through a note) that this is probably a quotation of a statement made in the Corinthian letter to Paul. Here The Message misses the sense with the translation, "First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations? Certainly-but only within a certain context." On the contrary, both here and in 7:6-9 Paul indicates that he approves of abstinence from sexual relations, but realizes that such abstinence is not practical, since it would lead to immorality on the part of those not having Paul's gift of celibacy. The Message significantly softens Paul's bias towards singleness/celibacy. However, neither the NET nor the ESV is totally understandable after 7:1. The NET'S "because of immoralities" is literal, but unusual English usage. The ESV'S "the temptation to sexual immorality" is better English, although more expansive (was Paul's concern temptation or actual instances of sexual immorality?). Yet in the next verse the NET'S "sexual rights" is far more understandable than the ESV'S "conjugal rights". I wonder what a random sampling of my church (or a seminary class) would reveal as to the understanding of "conjugal rights"? Would the understanding be specifically sexual, or would it be more legal? Would they know that this is a specifically marital term, or would they understand it as more general? Archaic English is only helpful if you have people who actually understand it.